Clarence Santiago v. United States

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) requires federal sentencing judges to consider “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” This case involves two co-defendants who undisputedly engaged in identical criminal conduct and had similar records but who pleaded guilty to different statutory provisions. The district court sentenced one to 280 months of imprisonment and the other to 97 months of imprisonment, resulting in a disparity of more than 15 years. The court provided no justification for sentencing one more harshly. In fact, the reason it gave for imposing the 280-month sentence applied equally to both co-defendants. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the co-defendants were not similarly situated for purposes of § 3553(a)(6) solely “because [they] pleaded guilty to different offenses,” joining two other circuits (the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits) that have held the same. In contrast, the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits assess defendants’ actual conduct—not statutes of conviction—to determine whether they are similarly situated under § 3553(a)(6). Thus, the question presented is: In assessing whether two defendants are similarly situated for purposes of § 3553(a)(6), are courts required to consider their actual offense conduct?