The government caught Mr. Bryant with a bag of what they claimed to be crack cocaine. After learning that the chemist who found the cocaine to be crack had been mislabeling evidence, Mr. Brindley confronted the government about it and moved to have the crack cocaine excluded from consideration by the Court due to the government's inability to establish a chain of custody. He also requested an evidentiary hearing challenging the government's claim that the substance was crack. At the hearing, the alleged crack was not admitted due to the chemist's mislabeling. The Court heard evidence from an informant who was soundly discredited by Mr. Brindley's questioning. The Court found that the substance was not crack cocaine.

The government accused Mr. Mendiola of being an organizer and leader of a Mexican cocaine distribution ring. They also accused him of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime and of intimidating witnesses for the government and obstructing justice. Mr. Brindley attacked the testimony of the government's cooperating witnesses and caught them lying repeatedly. Mr. Brindley got one of the government's witnesses to admit that he had "changed what the truth was many times." He got another to admit that he always lied when he was nervous and that he was nervous while giving his testimony. He got the third to attempt to testify that two contradictory things were true at the same time. Following these admissions, the Court found that Mr. Mendiola was not an organizer or leader, that the government could not prove that he possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, and that the government also could not prove any obstruction of justice.

The government argued that Mr. Webster should be held accountable for a large quantity of crack cocaine. The penalty for crack cocaine was more than twice as long as the penalty for powder cocaine. Mr. Brindley and Ms. Westover presented the court with extensive academic studies proving that there is no difference between crack and powder cocaine and that giving a higher penalty was unjust. The Court agreed with Mr. Brindley and sentenced Mr. Webster as if he trafficked powder cocaine instead of crack. Mr. Brindley was also able to use these same arguments to defeat the government's request for harsh crack cocaine penalties in the cases of U.S. v. Brown and U.S. v. Harris.

Mr. Harris pled guilty to distributing crack cocaine. He committed the crime prior to the passage of the Fairness in Sentencing Act (FSA), which lowered the statutory minimum sentence for crack cocaine offenses like Mr. Harris's. The government argued that the FSA did not apply to Mr. Harris because it was passed after he committed the crime. They based this claim on a decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that, in a similar case, the FSA did not apply. Mr. Brindley and Ms. Westover prepared detailed briefing, arguing that the Seventh Circuit case did not apply and that defendants who were not yet sentenced should have the FSA applied to them. After a lengthy argument on this issue, the Court agreed with Mr. Brindley and applied the FSA to Mr. Harris even though he committed the offense before it was passed. Mr. Harris was one of only a handful of defendants in the United States who committed an offense before the FSA was passed and still got it applied to him at sentencing.

Mr. Del Monico pled guilty to committing fraud. While out on bond, he committed an additional act of fraud. At sentencing, the government argued that this act of fraud constituted an obstruction of justice that should increase his sentence. Ms. Westover prepared detailed briefing arguing that Mr. Del Monico's fraud while out on bond did not constitute obstruction of justice because it was unrelated to the crime for which he was convicted and did not meet the requirements of the law. Mr. Brindley argued this position to the Court, which agreed over the government's objection. Mr. Del Monico did not receive an enhanced sentence for obstruction of justice despite committing additional fraud while out on bond.

The government argued that Mr. Jasso was a major participant in a drug conspiracy and that he was not entitled to a sentencing reduction under the safety valve doctrine because of dishonest statements made about his role in the offense. Ms. Westover and Mr. Brindley prepared detailed briefing demonstrating that the government's claims of dishonesty were insufficient to prevent a safety valve reduction. They also argued that Mr. Jasso's participation constituted a minor role, requiring a further sentencing reduction. The Court found against the government on both issues. Mr. Jasso was found to play a minor role and be entitled to a reduction under the safety valve.