substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense."). 30 . Thus, all three active District Judges in this District appear to agree that non-guideline sentences are appropriate in cases involving crack. 31 . For the reasons stated in note 35 infra and elsewhere in this Memorandum, this Court believes this view is inconsistent with the holding of Booker/Fanfan. 32 . Because the Guidelines are now advisory, pre-Booker/Fanfan authority in this Circuit holding that the recommendations of the Sentencing Commis cation of the 100:1 ratio in determining an appropriate sentence under § 3553, this Court takes no position on whether the crack/powder disparity is unconstitutional. See United States v. Berrios, 132 F.3d 834, 842 (1st Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); accord. United States v. Singleterry, 29 F.3d
holding that a judge may consider the disparity between the guidelines treat ment of crack and powder cocaine offenses in deciding upon a sentence holding that the trial judge may consider the crackpowder cocaine disparity in determining whether in the particular case a withinguidelines sentence is greater than necessary to serve the objectives of sentencing holding that while tenth circuit had specifically and clearly held that crackpowder disparity was not valid basis for departure district court was free to consider this disparity in determining sentence postbookerfanfan holding that sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine is constitutional holding that crackpowder disparity was constitutional stating that ujntil the en banc court of this circuit the us supreme court or congress itself accepts this assertion of disparity and finds it untenable challenges to the sentencing guidelines based on the disparity between sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine will continue to fail