133502P.pdf   07/01/2015  United States  v.  James Fry
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3502
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Bright and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. No presumption of vindictiveness is warranted 
   in the class of cases where a defendant who is convicted after trial 
   alleges that "similarly situated" defendants who pleaded guilty were 
   sentenced to lesser punishment; the district court explicitly considered 
   the issue of unwarranted sentencing disparities at defendant's sentencing; 
   the district court's explanation for its sentencing decision was not 
   plainly inadequate; 220-month sentence, which represented a substantial 
   downward variance from defendant's 1440-month advisory guidelines 
   sentence, was not substantively unreasonable; any disparities between 
   defendant's sentence and those of his co-conspirators were warranted by 
   their dissimilar situations, such as cooperation and acceptance of 
   responsibility, the seriousness of defendant's conduct, his prior record, 
   his efforts to obstruct the investigation and his role in the offense. 
   Judge Bright, dissenting.