Court Opinion

ID: 9480102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:38:27.308217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:29.374969
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result.
While I concur in the result, I do so with misgiving. The record in this case discloses a questionable analysis of the minor participant issue by the probation officer preparing the presentence report, followed by the district court’s conclusory statement at the sentencing hearing that “I don’t think you can say that he is a minor participant. Anyone who would have that much [counterfeit] money is not, — as you surmised correctly, he only attempted to pass one or two bills, but did have the rest of them.” Accordingly, I once again observe that the Sentencing Guidelines can and do produce disparate and unfair sentencing results among similar offenders where, as in this case, an essential factor in the application of the Guidelines rests upon a probation officer’s subjective interpretation of a Guidelines section, which the sentencing court summarily adopts. See United *679States v. O’Meara, 895 F.2d 1216, 1221-23 (8th Cir.1990) (Bright, J., dissenting).