Where a defendant had a history of fraudulent behavior, it was not disparate to impose a 70-month sentence, while other co-defendants received probation.
“Favara’s 70-month sentence was not unwarrantedly disparate from her co-defendants, several of whom received probation. Section 3553 requires the judge to consider, among other things, whether a particular sentence would create unwarranted disparities with other defendants, but only among defendants with ‘similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.’ 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (emphasis added). Favara omits the emphasized language from her brief, but that makes it no less fatal to her argument. The judge indicated in her written explanation that she considered the disparity, but found it warranted in light of the seriousness of the offenses, Favara’s history, and the fact that she embezzled $150,000 while awaiting trial. ‘Unlike the other co-defendants . . . Favara’s conduct followed a long history of other fraudulent behavior.’ The judge thus adequately considered any disparity between Favara’s sentence and those of her co-defendants and in any event Favara’s conduct and record warranted such a disparity.”
09-2589 & 09-2593 U.S. v. Favara
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Manning, J., Bauer, J.