This from another article:
The evidence presented by the government at trial clearly established that Angelos was a known gang member who had long used and sold illicit drugs. Further, the government's evidence established that, at the time of his arrest, Angelos was a mid-to-high drug dealer who purchased and in turn sold large quantities of marijuana. In addition, the government's evidence established that Angelos possessed and used a number of firearms, some stolen, to facilitate his drug-dealing activities.
If the people don't like the federal law then they should seek to have it redressed thru their congressmen and senators. I know, that is a losing cause. However, every sentence that is handed down can be disputed as being to harsh or not harsh enough. Would those who are opposed to this sentence willing to welcome this guy into their neighborhood or be their next door neighbor? I doubt it.
Anyone who believes a major drug dealer would sell three 1/2 lbs bags of pot will apparently believe anything.
Many cases where people are sentenced for multiple counts of a crime having been caught once yield nonsensical results; this is more properly a subject for legislatures to address than judges, but somebody needs to create some logical standards.
If someone throws a rock through a window, that's one act of vandalism. If on the next day the person throws another rock through someone else's window, that's clearly a second act of vandalism. Suppose, though, the person had instead thrown two rocks through the same window, thirty seconds apart, with the second rock knocking off some more glass. Would that be one act or two? Should someone who throws 70 rocks through one window in a short time be punished ten times as harshly as someone who threw one rock through a different person's windows every day for a week?