I'm not an attorney, but I don't think sets any precedent at least. Someone else can still fight certain legal assumptions and win the next time it happens (as far as I understand law, which isn't much). And I assume precedent can be challenged on some basis in the future regardless. Either way, it is disappointing.
Discussion
It sets soft precedent, in other words, any rulings from the court, particularly those based on facts later incorporated into sentencing, will be persuasive for future courts. But nothing set in stone. It will be interesting to see how sentencing goes and what the Judge says in terms of determining sentencing and the basis for it.