FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 13, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1467 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00081 -CR- FT M-33-SPC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CLARENCE BLACK, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 13 , 200 7) Be fo re T JO FL A T , CA RN E S an d H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Cl ar en ce Bl ac k a

ppe al s hi s 23 5- m onth se nte nc e fo r poss es sio n w ithint en t2

to d istri but e 500 gr am s or m or e of c oc ai ne , in vio latio n of

21 U
. S. C. § 84 1( a) (1 ) and (b)(1)(B )(ii). Based on his status as a caree r offe nder and his past crim inal conduct, the PSR calculated his based offense level at 31 (34 w ith a 3-level reduction for cooperation) and put h im at a c rim inal histo ry

category of V I, resulting in a sentencing guid elines range fr om 188 to 235 m onth s. T he district
co urt se nte nc ed

Bl ac k at the top of

the gui de lin es r an ge , 235 m onths, be ca use of

“ al l the a ggr av at ing f

ac tor s” and “ the de fe ndant’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry ” w hic h, in the
co urt’s v ie w, dem on st rat eda “ to ta l d is reg ardforth e la w.” O n a ppe al , Bl ac k c ont en ds that hi s se nte nc e w as dis pr opor tio nate to his
cr im ina l a ct ivi tie s su chthat i t vi olate d th e pr opor tio na lity c lause of the E igh th A m en dm en t. H e ar gue s th at be ca use the pr im ar

y targ et of the dr ug i nve sti gatio n, A nto nio P ay

ne , r ec ei ve d ase nte nc e of onl y 148 m onths, his own se nte nc e of 235
m on th s i s u nc on st itut io na ll y di sp ro po rti on at e in co m

pa ris on . Bl ackdi d n otrai se th is Eig ht h Am en dm en t o bjec ti on at s en te nc in g, s o we re vie wonl y

f or pla in e rr or . S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. Ra ad , 406 F
. 3d 1 322, 132 3 ( 11th Cir. ), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 196 (200 5). “ Plain err or occurs where ( 1) there is an
er ro r; ( 2) that i s pl ai n or

obv iou s; ( 3) a ff

ec tin g th e de fe ndant’ s su bst an tia l r igh ts i n that i t w as pr ej udi ci al and n ot h ar m le ss; and ( 4) that se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the f ai rn es s, int eg ri ty , or

pub lic r ep utatio n of

the j udi ci al pr oc ee din gs. ” I d.3

Innon ca pit al c as es , the E igh th Am en dm en t c ont ai ns o nly anarr ow pr opor tio na lity pr inc ipl e be ca

use Co ngr es s is e nti tle d to gr eat de fe re nc e in de te rm in in g t he types an d l im it s o f pu ni sh m en ts . Raad , 40 6 F .3dat 1 32 3. T y pic al ly w e co nsi de r thr ee e le m en ts i n ana lyzi ng a pr opor tio na lity arg um en t: ( 1) the gravity

of the offe nse and the harshness o f the sentence; (2) the sentences im posed on other crim inals in th e sam e j urisdictio n; and (3) the sentences im posed fo r co m m iss ionof

the sam e cr im e in o the r j ur isd ic tio ns. U nit ed S tate s v. Br an t, 62 F
. 3 d3 6 7 , 3 6 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 5 )
. B u ti no u r B r an td e c i s i o n , c o n s tr

u i n g th e S up r e me Court’ s decision in Harm elin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 111 S. Ct. 2680 (1991),
w e m odi fi ed

the te st s o th at

the r ev ie w ing c ourt i s on ly to co nsi de r the r em ai nin g factors a fter “ the court has first m ade a thre sholddeterm ination that the sentence im pose d is gr oss ly

dis pr opor

tio nate to the of

fe nse . ” I d. H er e, Bl ac k do es not

e ve n arg ue that hi s se nte nc e w as dis pr opor tio nate to his of fe nse . H e onl y

arg ue s th at

his se nte nc e w as dis pr opor tio nate to that gi ve n to a co-def endant. T herefor e, we need not loo k further. Black’ s sentence wa s re as ona ble in pr opor

tio n to the c ri m e ch ar ge d. H e ha s ahis tor y of e xte nsi ve c r i mi n a l c o n du c tan dw a s c o n v i c t e do f p o s s e s s i n g w i thth e i n t e n tt o s e l l 5 0 0 g r ams or m ore of coca ine. H is sentence wa s less than half the statuto ry m axim um . Ther e was no vi ol at io n o f th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. AFFIRMED.