In US v. Fontes, No. 04-2237. The defendant:
challenges his sentence for drug trafficking crimes on the ground that the district court's finding *** the government had engaged in sentencing factor manipulation by ordering the informant to
purchase crack cocaine with the intent of securing a higher sentence.
Apparently, this guy was predisposed to commit the crimes anyway. He was, as the ruling class says, "that type" and so, the District held, and the First Affirmed, "in light of Fontes's
predisposition to sell crack, the government's conduct was not ‘extreme and outrageous,' and the court therefore could not impose a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum."
The court describes the facts in detail, but resolves whether the District Court handled the issue right (in light of the government's concession) by saying:
We have never stated that a court is precluded from weighing a defendant's predisposition when evaluating the degree to which the government has engaged in sentencing factor manipulation.