aid of his proportionality/disparity argument. There, the appellate court affirmed a sentence identical to Raymonde’s based on Defoor’s commission of a violent aggravated assault in violation of supervised release. Raymonde argues his violations are minimal in comparison. We are not persuaded for several reasons. First, while sentencing disparity is still a factor to be considered, see U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), district courts now have wide latitude in imposing sentences at variance with the guidelines, see Gall, 552 U.S. at 46-47, 128 S.Ct. 586 (citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)), and to disagree with the Sentencing Commission’s policy considerations. See Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261, 129 S.Ct. 840, 843-844, 172 L.Ed.2d 596 (2009) (<HOLDING>); see also Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S.
holding district courts are entitled to vary from the guidelines based on a policy disagreement with those guidelines recognizing district courts ability to vary from guidelines based on policy disagreement with sentencing range in cases involving child pornography holding that sentencing judges can vary from guidelines ranges based on policy considerations including disagreements with the guidelines holding that sentencing courts may vary  based solely on policy considerations including disagreements with the guidelines holding a district court has authority to vary from the crack cocaine guidelines based on a policy disagreement with them italics omitted