For several years, it has been argued that the 100:1 ratio (crack vs. powder) contained in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is inherently unfair, unreasonable, and racially motivated.  As early as 1995, the Sentencing Commission proposed eliminating or reducing this ratio so that defendants being sentenced in cases involving crack and powder cocaine would be treated equally.  On April 29, 2009, Lanny Breur, Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division testified before Congress that a policy should be implemented which,  “…completely eliminates the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine . . ..”  Despite this optimistic statement from the White House, the Guidelines have yet to be reformed.  After years of legislative inaction, courts have begun to take matters into their own hands by applying the same Guidelines to crack and powder cocaine cases, resulting in sentences substantially below the advisory Guidelines, and, in some cases, avoiding the application of mandatory minimums.  Recent examples include U.S. v. Gully and U.S. v. Lewis.