Tenth Circuit affirms precedent that state/federal sentencing law disparities should not be considered

United States v. Begay, No. 19-2022, 2020 WL 5493743 (10th Cir. Sept. 11, 2020) (NM) At sentencing, defendant wanted to introduce evidence that showed the significant sentencing disparities between aggravated assault sentences in state court and federal court. The district court would not allow the evidence precedent didn’t allow consideration of state/fed disparities in sentencing choices. See US v. Wiseman, 749 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2014); US v. Branson, 463 F.3d 1110 (10th Cir. 2006); US v. Beaver, 749 Fed.Appx. 742 (10th Cir. 2018) (unpublished). (However, 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6) says nothing about limiting comparisons to disparities amongst federal sentences. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6) (“the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct”)). The Tenth twice extends its “sympathies,” but concludes its hands are tied because precedent is precedent and is unwilling to change the law the Court created.