CA1: nothing bad happened at sentencing

US v. Vu, Nos. 06-1221, 06-1222, 06-1223 (unpublished).  This opinion deals with several issues cursorily, rejecting all of the defendants challenges.

• As to the argument that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) violates equal protection or due process, of the crack/powder ratio, the court rejects it based on prior caselaw.  (This is not a reasonableness challenge, so the reliance to pre-Booker caselaw shouldn’t bother anyone.)
• USSG § 3B1.1(a) (enhancement for being a leader) was properly applied.  The defendant had argued that the only thing that could be relied upon was unobjected to material in the PSR.  The court concludes that the defendants should have done better, or rather “"'are merely rhetorical and unsupported by countervailing proof.'" United States v. Prochner, 417 F.3d 54, 66 (1st Cir. 2005) [(our coverage here)]
• As to reliance at sentencing on a co-defendants trial or sentencing (over which the same judge prevailed), the court finds nothing wrong with this because the defendant was on notice “via the government's sentencing memorandum” and the same counsel was present at both hearings.
• A habeas argument (for failing to request a transcript of co-defendant's trial prior to sentencing) is turned back because the First thinks it is premature on direct appeal, and the First speculates that it wouldn’t matter, anyway.