2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-9-2008 

# U SA v . S hield s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1917

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . S hie ld s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1037. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1037NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 1917 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. TER RE LL SH I ELD S,

A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 06- cr - 00351- 02 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn R . Padova Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 6, 2008 B efore: F ISH E R , JO R D A N , and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: J une 9, 2008)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l antT err el l Shi el ds pl ed gui l t yt o one countof cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i th t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e fi ftyorm or e gr ams of coc ai ne bas e ( “cr ack” ) , i n vi ol at i on of 21Shi el ds s ugges t s t hatt he mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence , beca us e i ti s bas ed on the 1 100: 1 r at i o, vi ol at es hi s r i ght s t o due pr oces s and fr eedom fr om cruel , unus ual , and d is p ro p o rt io n a te p u n is h m e n ts . See A p p e llan t’s B r. at 5 . S h ield s a lso su g g e sts th a t h is s e n te n c e is “ f

u n d a m e n ta lly u n f

a ir ” b e c a u s e it is b a s e d o n th e 1 0 0 :1 c ra c k -t o -p o w d e r r a tio . Id . 2 U . S. C . § 846, and one c ountof di s t r i but i on of fi ftyorm or e gr ams of cr ack, i n vi ol at i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ). O n M a rc h 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , S h ield s w a s s e n ten c e d to 1 2 0 m o n th s in pr i s on and a t erm of fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he s ent ence Shi el ds r ece i ved w as t he s t atut or ym andat or ym i ni m um s ent ence pr es cr i bed forthe conduc tt o w hi ch he pl ed gui l t y . O n M ar ch 28, 2007, Shi el ds fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l . O n appea l , Shi el ds a rg u e s th a t se n ten c in g h im to a m a n d a to rym in im u m se n ten c e o f 1 2 0 m o n th s, w h ich is b a se d o n th e 1 0 0 :1 c ra c k -to -p o w d e r ra tio in th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s, v io late d h is rig h ts undert he C ons t i tut i on. 1 T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s m att erunder18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e have cons i s t ent l yhel d t hatnei t herthe mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence s forcr ack o f f e n se s, w h ich a re se t f

o rth in 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b ), n o r th e 1 0 0 :1 c ra c k -to -p o w d e r ra tio v io la te s th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t’ s p ro h ib itio n o n c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n ts . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Fr az i er , 9 8 1 F .2 d 9 2 , 9 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (p e r c u ria m ). W e h a v e a lso h e ld that the m an d atorym inim u m sen tenc es a n d the 1 0 0 :1 rati o d o n o t violate a d ef en d an t’ s ri g h t to d u e p ro c e s s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. A l t on , 60 F. 3d 1065, 1068- 70 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( hol di ng t hata r at i onal bas i s exi s t ed forthe s ent enci ng s cheme r el at i ng t o cr ack a ndW e r ece nt l yaff i r m ed thatt he mandat orym i ni m um s ent enci ng s cheme and the 2 100: 1 r at i o r emai n vi abl e and a componentof the s ent enci ng cal cul at i on even a ft erthe Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker . See U ni t ed Stat es v. R i cks , 494 F .3 d 3 9 4 , 4 0 0 -0 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F . 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T o t he ext entt hatShi el ds al s o chal l enges the deni al of hi s pr e- s ent enci ng m ot i on

3 to d isre g a rd th e m a n d a to rym in im u m , w e h o ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in deny i ng t he mot i on. A s w e s ai d i n R i cks : “T h e re is litt le d isa g re e m e n t th a t th e 1 0 0 -to -1 ra tio 4 ov err epresent s the rel at i ve h arm of crack as co m pared t o p ow der cocaine. N evertheles s, i ti s t he r ol e of Congre s s , and nott he court s , t o det erm i ne w hatcr i m es ar e w or s e than ot her s . ” See Ri cks , 494 F. 3d at400. B eca us e C ongr es s had a r at i onal bas i s forcr eat i ng t he s cheme i tdi d, t he i s s ue of w hetherpuni s hi ng cr ack c r i m es m or e har s hl ythan pow der c o c a in e c ri m e s is “ u n f

a ir ” is f o r C o n g re s s to a d d re s s . See Al t on , 60 F. 3d at1069- 70;

3 pow dercoca i ne) . O urhol di ngs t hatnei t herthe mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence northe 100: 1 r at i o vi ol at es t he Fi fth orE i ght h A m endment s ar e cons i s t entw i t h t he pos i t i ons a d o p te d b yo u r s is te r c ir c u its . See Al t on , 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 0 6 9 n .7 ; s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. G a rc ia -C a rr a sq u illo , 4 8 3 F .3 d 1 2 4 , 1 3 4 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (n o tin g th a t “e v e ryo th e r c irc u it has r ej ect ed the ar gum entt hatt he s ent enci ng di s par i t ybetw een c r ack a nd pow dercoca i ne co n sti tutes cru el an d u n u su al pu n ishm en t” an d cit ing ca ses f rom ev erycircu it ). 2 G iv e n th is C o u rt’s p re c e d e n t an d th e c o n sis ten t p o sitio n tak e n b yo u r sis ter c irc u its on t hes e i s s ues , w e hol d t hats ent enci ng Shi el ds t o t he mandat orym i ni m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entbas ed on hi s pos s es s i on and s al e of ove rfi ftygr ams of cr ack di d not cons t i tut e a vi ol at i on of hi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s orhi s r i ghtt o be fr ee f r om cruel and u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t. W e f u rth e r h o ld th a t S h ield s’ s e n ten c e is n o t so f u n d a m e n tally 3 u n f a ir a s to w a rra n t re v e rsa l. 4Fr az i er , 981 F. 2d at95. 4

We h a v e c o n s i d e r e d a l l o t h e ra r g u me n t s ma d e b yth e p a r t i e s o n a p p e a l , a n d we c o n c lu d e th a t n o f

u rth e r d isc u ss io n is n e c e ss a ry . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence .