Court Opinion

ID: 9498435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:17:21.210873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:49.771881
License: Public Domain

BYE, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and joining in the dissent in part.
I applaud Judge Murphy’s excellent work on behalf of the en banc court in this difficult case. After much deliberation, however, I am persuaded by Judge Bright’s dissent as its reasoning appears to more effectively ensure against disparate sentencing for defendants convicted of identical offenses. United States v. Jackson, 959 F.2d 81, 83 (8th Cir.1992) (“The intent of the Sentencing Guidelines ... is clear: to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants.”). While mindful of the strong arguments advanced by the majority, I am convinced § 2B1.4’s use of the term “gain” was not intended to subject defendants facing a loss of liberty to an unpredictable and erratic sentencing scheme driven by so fluid a marker as stock prices. Thus, I join Judge Bright’s dissent from the court’s interpretation of § 2B 1.4. In all *1105other respects, I concur in the majority’s opinion.