where was his precious military then? why weren't they helping him meet his obligations? it should go both ways. if 'good' military folks and vets aren't allowed to break the law without us calling down the wrath of god on them for "disgracing' the uniform, then the higherups and military planners need to find a way to do without expensive programs like star wars, and spend more on veteran job training and placement and counseling.

  One thing that would give me pause though would be whether to go forward with a cert petition or go directly to a § 2255 action alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of due process, equal protection etc. because he can't bring a § 2255 until direct appeal is exhausted. this might though be one of the rare cases where ineffective assistance of counsel can be established in the record on appeal. a strong argument can be made that failing to move for the safety valve for a qualifying client is below any minimal standard of competence and it was clearly prejudicial here.

My question is how the heck was the judge not aware of what he could and could not do.

Here's a lengthy piece of writing on the judge from Jeff Sessions.

(...The entire Act [18 U.S.C. § 3553] need not be invalidated, since most of it is perfectly valid. In order not to "invalidat[e] more of the statute than is necessary," Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 652, the Court must retain those portions of the Act that are (1) constitutionally valid, ibid., (2) capable of "functioning independently," Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 684, and (3) consistent with Congress' basic objectives in enacting the statute, Regan, supra, at 653. Application of these criteria demonstrates that only §3553(b)(1), which requires sentencing courts to impose a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range (absent circumstances justifying a departure), and §3742(e), which provides for de novo review on appeal of departures, must be severed and excised. With these two sections severed (and statutory cross-references to the two sections consequently invalidated), the rest of the Act satisfies the Court's constitutional requirement and falls outside the scope of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466. ....

  So, Booker seems to say § 3553 (f) is still good law and (f) says a court in a safety valve case must impose the sentence pursuant to the guidelines without regard to any statutory minimum. In Lett's case though the guideline range was ABOVE the statutory minimum.

This is where the Left seriously is at odds with the majority. The majority are in favor of drug laws (and this is SELLING COCAINE). The majority in uniform will agree he'll need punishment due to him violating not only the laws of the state, military laws of conduct.

Even if he won the Congressional Medal of Honor, he is not above the law.

  When I see posts at this site that term it an "outrage" that a prominent lawyer has been indicted for allegedly laundering drug money and the only proffered reason for "outrage" is his status, I agree with the characterization of such a post as as suggesting certain people should be "above the law." On the other hand, when a post such as this merely argues that the mandatory minimum applicable in a case such as this punishes a person too severely for his crime that is not saying that person should be "above the law," it is only expressing disagreement with a particular law.