United States v. Jesse Pennington, 908 F.3d 234

Pennington pleaded guilty to distributing a Schedule I controlled substance (MDMA) and was sentenced to 1 year and 1 day (within the 10–16 month Guidelines range).
Law enforcement made multiple undercover purchases from Pennington in late 2015 and twice in Sept. 2016; alleged activity continued into Oct. 2016.
A co-defendant, JonPaul Dotson, received roughly seven months (pretrial time served); two other co-defendants received four-year sentences.
At sentencing the judge compared Pennington’s culpability to Dotson’s, concluding Pennington was more culpable and declined to give probation.
The judge misstated orally that Pennington’s drug activity began in 2014 and spanned two years; the written statement of reasons corrected that to fall 2015–fall 2016.
Pennington appealed, arguing procedural sentencing errors: (1) improper comparison to a not-similarly-situated co-defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and (2) due-process error from reliance on inaccurate information.

Issue	Pennington's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether using a co-defendant comparison under § 3553(a)(6) was improper	The court relied almost exclusively on comparison to Dotson who was not similarly situated, producing an unindividualized sentence	Comparing co-defendants to avoid unwarranted disparities is permissible; judge considered other § 3553(a) factors	Affirmed — comparing to Dotson was reasonable; judge adequately considered § 3553(a) factors
Whether reliance on inaccurate information at sentencing violated due process	Judge misstated facts (called her a poor "historian" and said drug dealing spanned two years), and relied on those inaccuracies	The judge’s passing credibility remark was permissible; the written statement corrected the sentencing-period error and shows the mistake did not affect the sentence	Affirmed — no due-process violation; written reasons corrected the oral factual error and it did not affect the outcome

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (courts must consider § 3553(a) factors and may give them different weight)
United States v. Miller, 900 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2018) (sentences must be remanded when a judge repeatedly relies on demonstrably inaccurate facts)
United States v. Pankow, 884 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2018) (written statement of reasons is used alongside oral remarks to evaluate sentencing rationale)
United States v. Daddino, 5 F.3d 262 (7th Cir. 1993) (oral sentence controls when unambiguous, but written reasons inform evaluation)
United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (due process entitles defendants to sentencing based on accurate information)