(“A defendant can only rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.”) (brackets omitted). Lackard finally asks that we remand his case to the district court so that the Government may determine whether it would again charge him with a crime carrying a mandatory minimum sentence under the U.S. Department of Justice’s new policy on charging such crimes. Other than his summary assertion that a remand for reconsideration “would only be fair” because his case is not yet final, Lackard presents no evidence to establish that the Government’s failure to apply its new policy in this case would violate his equal protection rights. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks, brackets and
recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states holding that the rights and duties of the united states on commercial paper which it issues are governed by federal law and that in the absence of an applicable act of congress it is for the federal courts to fashion the governing rule of law according to their own standards holding that given the broad discretion afforded federal prosecutors to enforce the united states criminal laws in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary courts presume that federal prosecutors have properly discharged them official duties holding that the united states may bring suit against a state to enforce compliance with federal law