United States v. Regaldo-Millares, No. 05-5853-cr (2d Cir. March 30, 2007) (found here)
Regaldo-Millares appealed his 168 month sentence, which was at the low end of his advisory Guidelines range. First, he argued that he should have received a minor role adjustment. The Second Circuit rejected the argument, finding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court's finding that he played more than a minor role. Second, he argued that his sentence was unreasonable because his minor role in the offense should have been considered by the district court when it considered the "nature and circumstances of the offense." The Second Circuit rejected this argument too, finding that his role in the offense was reflected by his sentence at the low end of his advisory Guidelines range. Moreover, the Second Circuit found that he and his co-defendant were not similarly situated and that there was therefore no unwarranted disparity between their sentences.