backgrounds, and there were no other reasons articulated by the trial court regarding the disparity in sentencing. The majority has determined that since Brown did not object to the disparity in the term of imprisonment, the plain error standard applies to this review, and that utilizing that standard, the sentence must stand. I disagree with the standard of review used to assess Brown’s contentions on appeal,, the lack of analysis of the role the individual plea agreements played in the disparity of the sentences, and the lack of analysis as to the authority mandating that the trial court state on the record the reasons for disparity in sentencing between co-defendants. However, because I agree that the sentence should be affirmed on appeal even utilizing th 8, 21 (W. Va. 2010) (<HOLDING>). A plethora of state high courts have taken
holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the standard of review for an award of statutory damages is even more deferential than an abuse of discretion standard holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that a trial courts sentencing is reviewed under a deferential abuse of discretion standard unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands holding that a district courtsfinding of equitable estoppel is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard