Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02470/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02470-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Alan Henry
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-2470

________________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Thomas Alan Henry, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

________________

Submitted: April 12, 2007

 Filed: May 17, 2007 

__________________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Alan Henry entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge of

knowingly traveling in interstate commerce with the intent to engage in illicit sexual

conduct with a person under the age of eighteen in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b).

The district court1

 sentenced Henry to 57 months’ imprisonment. Henry appeals his

sentence. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-2470 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2007 Entry ID: 3310439
-2-

In February and March of 2005, Henry corresponded over the internet with an

individual he believed was a 13-year-old girl named Cindy. The individual was

actually an adult female in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, who assisted law enforcement

agencies in finding internet predators. During their discussions on the internet, Henry

told Cindy that he wanted to have sexual relations with her. A second adult female

also assisted in the operation by conversing with Henry on the phone as Cindy

because her voice sounded like a child’s voice. As a result of the internet and phone

conversations, Henry drove from Illinois to Arkansas to meet Cindy at a motel room

on March 19, 2005. Police officers knew about this arrangement and arrested Henry

before he reached the motel room. Henry admitted that he was planning to have sex

with Cindy and that he knew what he was planning to do was wrong. 

Henry was indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with violating 18

U.S.C. § 2423(b). The district court denied Henry’s motion to dismiss the indictment

on the basis of legal impossibility, and Henry entered a conditional guilty plea so that

he could maintain the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion.

However, on appeal Henry only challenges his 57-month sentence. 

At sentencing, the district court calculated an advisory sentencing guidelines

range of 57 to 71 months based on a total offense level of 25 and a criminal history

category of I. Henry did not challenge the determination of the advisory guidelines

range but argued that the district court should consider the state sentences imposed for

similar offenses despite the contradictory holding of this court in United States v.

Jeremiah, 446 F.3d 805, 808 (8th Cir. 2006) (ruling that district courts may not

consider potential sentencing disparities between federal and state sentences when

sentencing a defendant). He also argued that such disparity violates the Eighth

Amendment. The district court adhered to this court’s holding in Jeremiah, rejected

the Eighth Amendment argument, and sentenced Henry to 57 months’ imprisonment.

Appellate Case: 06-2470 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2007 Entry ID: 3310439
-3-

On appeal, Henry first argues that his sentence was unreasonable because he

claims that a state sentence for a similar offense in Arkansas would be 90 days or less

in jail, much lower than his 57-month federal sentence. Henry bases his

unreasonableness argument on the contention that the district court should consider

the disparity between his federal sentence and a state sentence for a similar crime as

part of its consideration of “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among

defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). However, as Henry recognizes, as a panel we are bound by our

holding in Jeremiah that a district court is “neither required nor permitted under

§ 3553(a)(6) to consider a potential federal/state sentencing disparity in imposing [a]

sentence.” Jeremiah, 446 F.3d at 808. 

Henry also argues that his 57-month federal sentence constitutes cruel and

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment because it is so

disproportionate to what he claims would have been a sentence of 90 days or less if

he had been prosecuted by the State of Arkansas. However, “[t]he Eighth Amendment

forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime.” United

States v. Atteberry, 447 F.3d 562, 565 (8th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). In the

context of non-capital cases, Eighth Amendment challenges based upon

disproportionality are rarely successful. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001

(1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Further, the type

of inter-jurisdictional comparison Henry advocates is only appropriate if he can make

a threshold showing of a gross imbalance between his crime and his sentence. Ewing

v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 23 (2003). Henry can make no such showing. Henry’s

sentence is at the low end of the advisory guidelines range and is significantly less

than the statutory maximum of 30 years. We do not find Henry’s 57-month sentence

to be grossly disproportional to his crime. Thus, we reject his argument that it violates

the Eighth Amendment. 

Accordingly, Henry’s sentence is affirmed.

____________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2470 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/17/2007 Entry ID: 3310439