Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01141/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01141-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary E. Sutton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1141

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Gary E. Sutton, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 12, 2007

Filed: June 20, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following Gary Sutton’s (Sutton) conviction for being a felon in possession of

firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e), the district court1

sentenced Sutton to 280 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release, and

imposed a $23,431.92 fine and $100 special assessment. Sutton appeals, challenging

an evidentiary ruling by the district court and also arguing his sentence is

unreasonable and so grossly disproportionate to Sutton’s offense that his sentence

violates due process and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 

Appellate Case: 07-1141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2007 Entry ID: 3320983
-2-

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary ruling, see

United States v. Johnson, 463 F.3d 803, 808 (8th Cir. 2006), and the reasonableness

of Sutton’s sentence, see United States v. McMorrow, 471 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir.

2006). We review de novo whether Sutton’s sentence is grossly disproportionate to

the crime committed and thus violates due process and ultimately the Eighth

Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. See United States

v. Weis, __ F.3d __, No. 06-2996, 2007 WL 1437490, at *2, *6 (8th Cir. May 17,

2007) (rejecting the defendant’s Eighth Amendment challenge upon finding the

defendant’s sentence was “not ‘the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the

crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross

disproportionality’” (quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 30 (2003) (quoting

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1005 (1991)))). As an armed career criminal,

Sutton faced a sentence, as specified by Congress, at or near the statutory maximum,

which in this case is life imprisonment. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(h); United States v.

Maloney, 466 F.3d 663, 669 (8th Cir. 2006).

Having carefully considered Sutton’s arguments and the record, we find no

abuse of discretion or legal error by the district court. Therefore, we affirm. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1141 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2007 Entry ID: 3320983