United States v. Collie, No. 06-1669-cr, 2007 WL 3284065 (2d Cir. Nov. 7, 2007)
As detailed in this post, the Second Circuit seems to have prohibited district court from considering the disparity between state and federal prison terms when deciding whether or not to impose an non-Guidelines sentence. Collie puts an unusual twist on consideration of state/federal disparity.
Collie was sentenced to 63 months imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he argued that this sentence was unreasonable because it was significantly longer than any of the sentences he received for his multiple prior state convictions.
So, let me get this straight: Collie is convicted of a number of state offenses. He receives sentences for those prison terms that are significantly shorter than the federal prison term he ultimately receives. He obviously doesn't learn anything from his prior brushes with the law and is now charged with federal offenses. And he wants the court to impose a shorter sentence because he received shorter state sentences? Seems Collie has a lot to learn about the American criminal justice system and deterrence.