US v. Washington, No. 05-2569 (unpublished), affirms a sentence on reasonableness grounds. It all comes down to this:
Here, the judge expressly acknowledged the severity of the sentence in relation to the small quantity of drugs involved and concluded that a long sentence was warranted in light of Congress's express intent that career offenders be sentenced "to a term of imprisonment at or near the maximum term authorized." 28 U.S.C. § 994(h). [Note: I am not sure if this is the right statute or not.]
The court specifically declines to address whether the sentencing disparities that matter are “federal v. federal” or “federal v. state” and concludes that: we agree with the district court that a sentencing disparity explained by differences in defendants' criminal histories or degrees of cooperation is not "unwarranted" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Drug Law Blog comments here.