Rather than characterizing a collective judicial view, this article attempts to discern some trends in the comments and criticisms of the guidelines that have appeared in trial and appellate opinions. Part I addresses the early reaction to the guidelines, as many district judges, accustomed to wide latitude, bridled under newly imposed restraints on their discretion, while the courts of appeals sought to find their footing in the new system. Part II examines the more recent commentary. It finds that cases that have provoked the strongest commentary have been those in which the guidelines fell farthest short of the goal of similar sentences for similar offenses under similar circumstances. Although these cases have presented a variety of issues, they involve a common perception that, in the name of sentencing uniformity, the guidelines have grouped disparate conduct, or conduct proved with varying degrees of certainty, and, through the application of rigid rules, required them to be treated identically.