sentencing amongst equally culpable defendants will ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial system. Accordingly, for the reasons elucidated above, the trial court’s sentence should be affirmed. 1 See also United States. v. Pinto-Padilla, 315 Fed. Appx. 718, 723 (10th Cir. 2009) (“We do not require a defendant to object to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence to preserve the issue on appeal and, instead, review the length of his sentence for an abuse of discretion”) (citing United States v. Smart, 518 F.3d 800, 804-06 (10th Cir. 2008)); United States v. Lindsey, 339 Fed. Appx. 956, 958-59 (11th Cir. 2009); and United States v. Reed, 421 Fed. Appx. 113, 115 (2d Cir. 2011). 2 Including but not limited to: State v. Rupar, 293 Conn. 489, 978 A.2d 502, 509 (Conn. 2009) (<HOLDING>); State v. Adamcik, 272 P.3d 417, 457 (Idaho
holding that as long as the sentencing judge has a reasonable persuasive basis for relying on the information that he uses to fashion his ultimate sentence within the authorized range there should be no interference with his discretion holding that a sentence is proper as long as it is within the statutory range prescribed for the offense without regard to drug quantity holding apprendi is not implicated by an application of the sentencing guidelines that increases the sentencing range so long as the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge holding that apprendi does not apply to a judges exercise of sentencing discretion within a statutory range so long as a defendants sentence is not set beyond the maximum term specified in the substantive statute