NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0075n.06 No. 08-6388 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT United States of Am eric a, ) ) P laintif f-App ellee, ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED v. ) STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR ) T H E W E S T E RN DI S T RI CT O F Ro de r ic k M c Ne al, ) TEN NE SSEE ) Defendan t-Appellant. ) BEF ORE: KEN NE DY , M OORE, a nd SU TTON , C ir c uitJudg e s. CORNELIA G. K

ENNEDY, Circuit Jud ge. Def endant a ppeals his sentenc e of 290 year s and 4 months of i mprisonment, arguing that the district court misapplied 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) a nd that his se nte nc e vio late s th e Ei g hth Am e ndme nt’ s p ro hib iti on on c ru e l and

un us ua l pu ni sh ment s. B e c a us e his argume nts are wi tho ut m e ri t, w e AF F I RM. F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND Be tween O ctober

21, 2006, and Nove mber 15, 2006, a lone g unman later

identified as the defe ndant committed 14 arme d robber ies o f 1 1 fa s t fo o d restaur ants and 3 g as stations. At eac h place , defe ndant enter ed the business, pulled out a handgun, and dema nded that the e mploy ee tur n
over a ll money

in the ca sh reg isters. Def endant obtaine d just over $3,000 from 13 loca tions, and an
un de te rm ine d amou

nt f ro m on e a dd iti on a l pl a c e . H e wa s a pp re he nd e d s ho rt ly

a ft e r h e le ft

his la st targ e t, M c Do na ld’ s, on

No ve mbe r 15 , and he pr ov ide d a wr itt e n c on fe ssi on to a ll o f t he ro bb e ri e s.2

B a se d o n th is c on du c t, d e fe nd ant w a s in dic te d o n 2 9 counts : 14 c ounts of int e rf e ri ngwi th
commerc e by

robber y , 18 U.S
. C
. § 1 9 5 1 , 14 counts of using a gun during a cr ime of violence , 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), a

nd 1 co u n t of beinga fe lon in possession of a fire arm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ). He pleade d g uilty

to 25 counts encompa ssing 12 of the robbe ries. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

c omp ute d d e fe nd ant’ s guid e lin e s se nte nc ing ra ng e . I t de te rm ine d that hi s base of fense level wa s 20, USSG § 2B3.1, but incre ased it by 2 levels for

obstruction of justice under USSG § 3C1. 1 b ec au s e defe ndant had ur g ed his family members to pay

off the vic tims. Under Section 3D1.4, 5 levels we re a dded bec ause the re w ere more than 5 counts. Thre e leve ls were then
su btr a c te d b e c a

us e the c ourt

fo un d th a t de fe nd ant h a d a c c e pte d r e sp on sib ili ty , giv in g d efe nd ant a total offense level of 24. Def endant’ s criminal history

beg an at a g e 8, and r esulted in a cr iminal hist ory score of 15, wh ic h p la c e d h im i n category VI . Witho ut c on sid e ri ngthe mand a tor y min imum se nte nc e s, defe ndant’s guideline ra

ng e wa s 100-125 months of imprisonment. However , the di s t ri ct cour t fo un d th a t de fe nd ant wa s subj e c t to a mand a tor y min imum sen te nc e of 28 2 y e ars un de r 1 8 U .S. C. § 9 24 (c ), and

se nte nc e d h im t o a

tot a l of 29 0 y e ars of

inc arc e ra tio n. De fe nd ant a

pp e a ls. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW “The district court’s a

pplication of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is a question of l aw which we r eview de novo.” United States v. Langan , 2 6 3 F
. 3 d 6 1 3 , 6 2 6
- 2 7 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c it a ti o n s o mi tt e d )
. We al s o review de novo whe ther a sentenc e violates the Eig hth Amendment. U n ite d S ta te s v . Ca ver , 470 F.3d 220, 247 ( 6th Cir. 2006). AN AL YSI S3

Section 924 of title 18 provides that a defe ndant who “during and in re lation to any crime of violence or

drugtraff

icking crime . . . use s or ca rries a firea rm” shall be se ntence d to a minimum term of inca

rce ration of se ven y ear s “if the f irea rm is b ra n dished.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1)( A). Armed r obbery

is such a cr ime of vi olence
. See U nited States v. Bandy , 239 F.3d 802, 805 ( 6th Cir. 2001). Howe ver, f

or ea ch “se cond or subse quent conviction,” the penalty incre ases to a minim um term of 25 y ear s, to be serve d consec utively to any other ter m of imprisonment. 18 U. S.C. § 924(c) (1)( C)(i) & (D)( ii). The effe ct of this section i s that ever y “sec ond or subseque nt conviction” for possession of a

firea rm duringa cr ime of violence adds 25 y ear s to a defe ndant’s sente nce. I t is well established that the 25-y ear mandatory

minimum sentenc e ac company i n g eac h

“ se c on d o r s ub se qu e nt” c on vic tio n a pp lie s e ve n wh e n th e fi rs t c on vic tio n w a s o bta ine d in the same proce eding
. Deal v. U

nited States , 5 08 U. S. 1 29 , 1 32 (1 99 3) ; United States v. J acobs , 244 F.3d 503, 50 8 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 1) (“ Th e Un ite d St a tes S up re me Court ha s h e ld t

hat e ve n th ou g h a

de fe nd ant i s convicted of multipl e firea rm violations in t he same proce eding , 18 U.S.C. § 924 im poses a f ive-y ear
consec utive prison sentenc e for the first vi o l at i o n of § 924(c )(1) and an a dditional twenty -y ear
c on se c uti ve pr iso n s e nte nc e fo r e a c h a ddit io nal vio latio n o f § 92 4( c )( 1) .” ); see also Gre enlaw v. United States , 12 8 S. Ct. 25 59 , 2 56 3 ( 20 08 ); c f. Un ite d States v. N

ab or s , 901 F.2d 1351, 1358- 59 (6th Cir. 1990). Def

endant plea ded guilty to 12 violations of section 924 at the same hear ing. U nder Deal , the mere fac t that all counts were broug ht before the district court at the same time does not
a lte r t he a pp lic a tio n o f t

he su bs e qu e nt c on vic tio n e nh anc e me nt. De fe nd ant t

ri e s to avo id t

his c on c lus ion

by arguin g tha

t hi s c on vic tio ns on

mul tip le c ounts in this i nstance are not “sec ond or subseque nt conviction[s] ” because the di strict court a nnounced its fi nd ingof

g uil t si mul tane ou sly

fo r a ll cou nts. H e argue s th a t th e Sup re me Court he ld t hat a4

second or subsequent conviction must be “a convic tion afte r the fir st conviction.” Deal , 5 08 U. S. at 135 (empha sis in orig inal). Noting that the us e of the word “afte r” sug g ests separ ation in time, he c on te nd s th a t Deal ’s holding c annot be a pplied when a l l counts are adjudicate d at once
. Howeve r, the De al c ourt

a lso e mph a size d th a t “ fi nd ing s o f guil t on se ve ra l c ounts are ne c e ssa ri ly
ar ri ved at suc cessively

in time.” Deal , 5 0 8 U
. S. a t 1 3 3 n . 1
. T h e me r e f a c t th a t a district court
ann ounc e s th e a dju dic a tio n o f guil ty a t on e tim e do e s n ot d ist inguis h th is c a se fr om Deal
. De fe nd ant a lso argue s th a t Deal ha s b e e n li mit e d b y

late r ca se s to a

pp ly on ly to r e c idi vis ts, ci t i n g Castil lo v. United States , 5 3 0 U.S. 120, 125 (2000). In Cas til lo , the Supreme Court deter mined that ref

ere nces in sec tion 924(c)( 1) to possession of a “mac hineg un” cr eate d an ele ment of a se parate cr ime rathe r than a penalty enhanc ement. I t is true, as def endant a sserts , t h at t he Castil lo opinion noted that the “sec ond or subseque nt” pena lty is aimed at re cidivism. I t is also true that rec idivism ty

pically means the commissi on of an of fense afte r beingpunished for a n ear lier one. See D eal , 508 U.S. at 138 (Stevens, J., di ssenting) . Howeve r, Castil lo e mpl oy e d th e te rm re c idi vis m only tan gen t i al l y . I n contra st, Deal square ly and cle arly

reje cted the a

rgument that section 924(c ) applies only to r ecidivists a s define d by the defe ndant. See D eal , 508 U. S. at 1 36 (“ We c ho os e to fo llo w the langua g e of

the statute, wh ic h g ive s n o in dic a tio n th a t pu nis hme nt o f t

ho se wh o f

a il t o lear n the ‘lesson’ of

prior convic tion or of prior punishment is the sole purpose of § 924(c) (1), to the exclusion of ot h er p enal g oals such as taking r epeat offende rs off the streets for espec ially

long periods, or simply

visiti ng society ’s re tribution upon repeat offende rs more se vere ly .”). Finally , defe ndant ra ises a claim that his sentence of over 290 y ear s is so grossly

excessive that it constitut es cr

uel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Ame ndment. “The Supreme Court has neve r held that a

sentenc e to a spe cific te rm of y ear s, even if it might turn out to be more than5

the re asonable life expectanc y of the de fenda

nt, constitutes cruel a

nd unusual punishment.” United Sta te s v . B e v e rly , 369 F.3d 516, 537 ( 6th Cir. 2004). There is no Eighth Amendme nt violation for imposing what is e ffe ctively a life sentenc e on a defe ndant who committed multi ple robbe ries, and we ha ve re peate dly

aff irmed such se ntence s. E.g. , United States v. W atkins , 5 09 F .3 d 2 77 , 2 83 (6 th Cir. 2007) (holding 147 y ear sentenc e wa s Constit utionally permissible for de fenda nt who
c omm itt e d s ix ar

me d r ob be ri e s) ; United States v. Mark s , 209 F.3d 577, 583 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding there was no Ei gh t h Am endment viol ation for a sentenc e of ove r 186 y ear s g iven to a def endant committed nine robber ies in six months). CO NC LU SION Acc ording ly , we AF FI RM the defe ndant’s sente nce.