Thoughtful reasonableness review discussions from the circuits

This afternoon brought two interesting and thoughtful discussions of various federal sentencing issues from two well-regarded judges in two circuits:

From the First Circuit, in US v. Milo, No. 06-2185 (1st Cir. Oct. 30, 2007) (available here), Judge Boudin discusses at length arguments made by the government assailing a district court’s decision to give only time served and probation to a major pot dealer who had shown contrition and had cooperated with the government.  The government ultimately prevails, but defense attorneys should like some of the discussion of pertinent sentencing considerations.

From the Tenth Circuit, in US v. Angel-Guzman, No. 06-4303 (10th Cir. Oct. 30, 2007) (available here), Judge McConnell discusses at length the standards for appellate review in light of Rita.  Judge McConnell’s work provides a great review of post-Booker and Rita realities in the course of affirming a within-guideline sentence.

Both of these rulings show what fine work the circuits can do to help create a rich common law of sentencing, if and only when they take the time to examine seriously a litigant’s arguments concerning a district court’s sentencing choices.

UPDATE:  The Boston Globe has this piece on the Milo ruling.