United States v. Cromwell, 645 F.3d 1020

Cromwell pleaded guilty to distributing more than five but less than fifty grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
District court granted a three-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 120–150 months, sentencing Cromwell to 150 months.
Cromwell’s counsel argued for downward departure or variance to the mandatory minimum of five years.
The court acknowledged Cromwell’s extensive and violent criminal history, sought a deterrent sentence, and stated it would consider up to the statutory maximum.
Cromwell presented testimony in mitigation; the court sentenced at the top of the guideline range, citing redeeming qualities.
On appeal Cromwell argued procedural error (burden misallocation) and substantive unreasonableness; the government cross-appeal not mentioned.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court place the burden on Cromwell to prove a guideline-range sentence?	Cromwell argues burden was improperly placed on him.	Cromwell contends procedural error occurred in allocation of burden.	No procedural error; burden allocation was proper.
Was Cromwell's sentence substantively unreasonable?	Cromwell argues sentence was unreasonable given history and non-departure on crack/powder disparity.	Court relied on 3553(a) factors; no required downward departure for disparity.	Sentence within range and reasonable; no abuse of discretion.

United States v. Brewer, 624 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2010) (within-range sentences presumptively reasonable; abuse of discretion standard)
United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2005) (within-range sentences presumptively reasonable; factors considered on appeal)