NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0108n.06 No. 09-1137 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,

v. EUGENE P HILL IP LeCLEAR, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

BEFORE: MERRITT, COLE, an d COOK, Circ uit Jud ges. MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Pursuant t o a written plea ag ree ment, appellant, Eug ene L eClear , pled g uilty

to being a fe lon in possession of a fire arm a nd wa s s entenc ed to 180 months incar cer ation under a

mandatory

minimum statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)( 1) (a n instant offense under § 922(g ) pl us “three previous convic tions . . . for a violent fe lony or a se rious drug offe nse . . .” require s a minimum sent en ce of fifte en y ear s). L eClear appea ls his sentence c laiming that the g overnme nt acted in ba d faith by failing to file a § 3553(e ) motion to re d u ce his sente nce f or substantial a ssistance. He also argues that the leng th of his sentence violates the Cruel a nd Unusual Pun ish me nt C la

us e of the Ei g hth

Am e ndme nt. We f

ind the se c la ims to b e me ri tle ss a nd AF F I RM his sentence

.No. 09-1137

United States v. LeClear

-2- On Marc h 2 6, 20 08 , L e Cle ar wa s ar re ste d for his inv olv e me nt in an arm e d rob be ry and ho me invasio n . W h en ex ecuting a se arc h war rant at L eClear ’s home, police f ound a 12-g aug e shotg un under th e c u s h io n s o f h is c o u c h

. O n A u g u s t 7 , 2 0 0 8 , L e Cl e ar w a s in d ic te d b y a g r an d jur y in the Wes te rn Di str ic t of

Mic hig an f

or be inga fe lon in p os se ssi on of a fi re arm in vio la tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 922(g )(1) . Pursuant to a written plea ag ree ment, L eClear pled g uilty

and wa s therea fter se ntence d to 180 months i ncar cer ation. L eClear timely appea led his sentence

. L eClear claims the g overnme nt’s decision not to file a § 3553( e) substantial a ssistance motion for reduc tion of his sentence constituted a bad faith brea ch of the plea ag ree ment. L eClear alleg es that he pr ovided substantial assistance following his arre s t an d p rior to his plea. The g overnme nt claim s t h at h i s assistance was not substantial. We have pr eviously held that in such

case s the g overnme nt need only make “simple denial of the value of such assistanc e in open c ourt.” Un ite d S tat es v . Lu k

se , 286 F.3d 906, 912 ( 6th Cir. 2002). When, a s is undisputed he re, the g overnme nt’s plea a g ree ment ref ers to the possibility

of a § 5 K1 .1 mot ion

bu t ul tim a te ly

re se rv e s unil a te ral disc re tio n to de te rm ine wh e the r t he mot ion

is appropr iat e, “courts may only revie w the g overnme nt’s ref usal to file the motion to determine whether its de cision was based on unconstitutional mot ives.” Id. a t 90 9; see also United States v

. Hi ll , 323 F. App’ x 434, 436 (6th Cir. 2009). Consequently , we r eview the g overnme nt’s ref usal for unconstitutional mot ives only . As L eClear acknow ledg es in his brief, there is nothing in the re cord to s ug g e st a

n unc on sti tut ional mo ti ve on the pa rt of the g ov e rnme nt, so L e Cle ar h a s n ot m e t th is standard.No. 09-1137

United States v. LeClear

-3- L e Cle ar’ s se c on d c la im i s th a t hi s fif te e n- y e ar se nte nc e is s o d isp ro po rt ion a te a s to vio la te the Ei g hth

Am e ndme nt’ s p ro hib iti on on c ru e l and unus ua l pu

nis hme nt. B e c a

us e L e Cle ar f

a ile d to raise this cha lleng e at his sentencing hear ing, his c laim is not cognizable on a ppeal. United States v. Organe k , 65 F.3d 60, 62 ( 6th Cir. 1995). Even a ssuming this issue were proper ly befor e thi s court, it is entirely without merit. L eClear

rec eived the minimum sentenc e permissible under the Armed Caree r Criminal Ac t, a sentenc ing statute we ha

ve held is not crue l and unusual. See U nited States v. W

arren , 9 73 F .2 d 1 30 4, 13 11 (6 th Cir . 1 99 2) ; United States v. Pe digo , 87 9 F .2 d 13 15 , 13 20 (6 th C ir . 1 98 9) . M or e ov e r, thi s Co ur t “ wi ll not eng ag e in a pr oportionality analy sis ex cept in ca ses wher e the penalty imposed is de ath or life in prison without the possibi lity of par ole.” O r

ganek , 6 5 F. 3 d

at 6 3 (q u o t i n g United States v. Thomas , 49 F.3d 253, 261 ( 6th Cir. 1995)). Acc ording ly , L eClear ’s sentenc e is AF FI RMED.