United States v. Ganim, No. 03-1448-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 4, 2007) (found here)
Ganim argued on appeal that, on remand, the district court erred in not reducing his 108 month Guidelines sentence "in light of the statistics he presented on national average federal bribery statistics." The Second Circuit rejected the argument, finding that the statistics Ganim presented gave no indication they pertained to "similarly situated" individuals, as is required by 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6). Ganim was, in fact, convicted of a whole host of public corruption-related offenses. How could the national averages he presented not have been relevant?