Opinion ID: 2979998
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unreasonable Weight to the 100:1 Ratio

Text: Returning to his critique of the 100:1 ratio, Harris also faults the district court for “plac[ing] an ‘unreasonable amount of weight’ on the discredited” ratio. This substantive-unreasonableness challenge fails for two reasons. First, the district court does not appear to have accorded any weight to the ratio in its § 3553(a) analysis. And, second, to the extent that Harris contends the court should have exercised its discretion under Kimbrough to reconsider the propriety of the ratio when assessing the § 3553(a) factors, see Kimbrough, 552 U.S. at 104–05, we have already explained that the court plainly erred in considering the § 3553(a) factors at all.