FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT AUG 3 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16270 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 4 9 - CR- FTM - 2 9 - SPC U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s E D W I N M . M A C K , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 3, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , P R Y O R an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E dw i n M a c k appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s f orm ul t i pl e drug a ndCounts 1 and 2 also named Mack’s co- conspirator , J ohn Howard. 1 2 fi re arm s off

ense s i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1 and 84 6, 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g), a n d 2 6 U .S .C . § 5 8 6 1 . A f te rath o r o u g h r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d , w e a f

f irm . I . B a c kgr ound M ac k w as i nd i ct ed for c on spi ra cyt o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ra ck c o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 ( C o u n t 1 ) ; d is tr ib u tio n o f c r a c kc o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( C o u n ts 2 a n d 3 ) ; p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te 1 50 gram s or m ore of c ra ck cocai ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (C ou nt4); pos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm by ac onvi c t e d f

e l on, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ( Co u n t5 ) ; a n d p o s s e s s i o n o f a n u n r e g i s t e r e d f

i r e arm, i n v i o l a t i o n o f

2 6 U . S. C. § 5 86 1 (C ou nt6). T he go vernm enti nd i ca t ed thati ti nt ended t o see k enh ance d p e n a l t i e s , i n c l u d i n g ma n d a t o ry l i f e i mp r i s o n me n to n Co u n t4 , u n d e r2 1 U . S. C. § 851. M ac k o ri gi nal l y pl ea ded g ui l ty t o al l coun t s w i tho uta w ri tt en pl ea a g r e e m e n t, b u t w h e n h e r e a liz e d h e f a c e d am a n d a to ry te rm o f lif e im p r is o n m e n t, he m ov ed t o w i thd raw hi s pl ea . A l tho ug h the courthad q uest i on ed M ac k ext ensi vel y duri ng the pl eacol l oq uy and h ad expl ai ned the po ss i bl e penal t i es , af t er ah e a r in g o n th e m o tio n , th e c o u rt g r a n te d M a c k ’s m o tio n to w ith d r a w th e p le a . P r io rto tr ia l, th e c o u rt d e te rm in e d th a t it w o u ldc o n d u c t ab if u r c a te d tr ia l,3

s e pa r a t i ng C ount5 be c aus e i tr e qui r e d pr oof tha tM a c k ha d pr i orf

e l ony c o n v ic tio n s . T he evi dence attri al es t abl i shed the fol l ow i ng fa ct s: F ortM ye rs P ol i ce O f f i c e rRi c h a r d D a v i s , a c t i n g a s ad ru g b u y e r , ap p r o a c h e d M a c ka tM a c k ’ s h o me t o pur c ha s e c r a c k c oc a i ne . M a c k w a s he s i t a ntt o m a ke ade a l , buta gr e e d a f t e rc oconspi ra t or John H ow ar d arr i ved and confi rm ed thathe di d n otthi nk D avi s w as p o lic e . M a c kg a v e tw o p ie c e s o f c r a c kto H o w a r d , w h o th e n g a v e th e d ru g s to D a v is in e x c h a n g e f

o r$ 4 0 . D a v is la te re n g a g e d in a n o th e r , s im ila rs a le w ith M a c k . F i el d t es t s c on fi rm ed thatthe pi ec es w er e c ra ck. F ol l ow i ng the bu ys , po l i ce o b ta in e d a n d e x e c u te d as e a r c h w a rr a n t, a t w h ic h tim e th e y f o u n d as h o tg u n in M ac k’ s hou se , the m on eyD avi s use d i n the un derc ov erbu ys , and d rugs i n a j ac ket i n the trunk of

M a c k’ s c a r . D E A f

or e ns i c c he m i s t s c onf

i rm e d tha tthe a m ountof cr ac k fou nd exce eded 81 gram s. A n A T F A gentconfi rm ed thatthe fi re arm w as m a nuf a c tur e d i n M a s s a c hus e tt s . I n as ubs e que nti nt e rvi e w , M a c k a dm i tt e d tha the ke ptas hot gun i n the hous e f orpr ot e c t i on a nd tha the ha d c r a c k c oc a i ne f or p e r s o n a l u s e , b u t h e d e n ie d s e llin g d ru g s . D u r in g its c a s e - in - c h ie f , th e g o v e rn m e n t n o tif

ie d th e c o u rt th a t it w is h e d to c a l l V i nc e ntD oy l e , aw i tne s s f orthe de f

e ns e , t o t e s t i f

y aboutatr a f

f i c s t op i nv ol vi ng H ow ar d and M ac k thatre sul t ed i n H ow ar d’ s arr es ton drug char ges4

u n r e la te d to th e in s ta n t c h a r g e s . M a c kd id n o t o b je c t. T h e c o u rt in d ic a te d th a t it norm a l l y w oul d nota l l ow s uc h t e s t i m ony be c aus e i tdi d notr e l a t e t o the i ns t a nt c ha r ge s , buta f

t e rde f e ns e c ouns e l s t a t e d tha the w a nt e d the t e s t i m ony t o c om e i n, the courtal l ow ed the t es t i m on y. D oyl e then t es t i fi ed thathe had arre st ed H ow ar d on drug c ha r ge s dur i ng ar out i ne tr a f f i c s t op. M a c k w a s apa s s e nge ri n the c a r , but po l i ce di d n otfi nd any drugs on hi m . T he courti nstruct ed the j ury thatthe cr ac k f o u n d o n H o w a r d w a s n o t p a rt o f th e c o n s p ir a c y . A f t e rthe gove rnm e ntr e s t e d i t s c a s e - i n- c hi e f , M a c k m ove d f

orj udgm e ntof ac qu i tt al , chal l engi ng the chai n o f e vi dence and w hether the go vernm enthad e s t abl i s he d tha tM a c k kne w the s hot gun ha d t o be r e gi s t e r e d. T he c ourtde ni e d the m ot i on. D e f

e ns e c ouns e l c a l l e d one w i tne s s , a nd M a c k di d nott e s t i f y . T he gove rnm e ntha d no r e butt a l w i tne s s e s , a nd M a c k r e ne w e d hi s m ot i on f orj udgm e nt of ac qu i tt al , w hi ch the courtagai n d eni ed. T he j ury c on vi ct ed M ac k o n C ou nt s 1-4 a n d 6 , s p e c if

ic a lly c o n c lu d in g th a t th e a m o u n t o f d ru g s e x c e e d e d 5 0 g r a m s . T he courtthen p roce eded on C ou nt5. T he go vernm entproffe re d evi dence thatM ac k h ad been conv i ct ed of sa l e of c ocai ne and thathi s r i gh t s had been re st ored, exce ptfor the ri gh tt o p osse ss a f i re arm . T he go vernm ental so re subm i tt ed M ac k’ s s t at em ent , i n w hi ch M ac k adm i tt ed thathe w as a c on vi ct ed f e lo n . A lth o u g h d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l o b

je c te d to th e tap e , th e c o u rt p e rm itte d it in to5

e v id e n c e . T h e ju ry c o n v ic te d M a c ko n C o u n t 5 . T he prob at i on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), gr oupi ng the of

f e ns e s t oge the runde rU . S . S . G . § 3D 1. 2( c ) a nd ( d) a nd a s s i gni ng a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

32 ba s e d on the a m ountof drugs . T hi s l e ve l w a s i nc r e a s e d by 2 for po ss es si on of a f

i re arm , § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1), and b y 2 for r ol e i n the offens e, § 3 B 1 . 1 (c), resu l t i n g i n a t o t al o ffen se l ev el o f 3 6 . M ack , h o w ev er, q u al i fi ed as a c a r e e rof f e nde runde r§ 4B 1. 1; the r e f or e , hi s of

f e ns e l e ve l w a s r a i s e d t o 37. T he pr oba t i on of

f i c e rthe n l i s t e d the pr i orc onvi c t i ons , i nc l udi ng s e ve r a l pr i ordrug co n v i ct i o n s, resu l t i n g i n a cri m i n al h i st o ry cat eg o ry IV . B ecau se M ackw as a c a r e e ro f f e n d e r , th e c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry w a s r a is e d to V I . T he prob at i on offi ce r not ed thatthe go vernm enthad fi l ed for a n enhancem entun der 21 U . S . C . § 8 51 . A s are sul t , M ac k fac ed a s t atut ory m an d at o ry t erm o f l i fe i m p ri so n m en to n C o u n t4 . U n d er th e sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n es, M ac k fac ed a r ange of 36 0 m on ths t o l i fe i m pri sonm ent , bu tthatrang e bec am e l i fe un der U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1. 1(c) (2) due t o the st atut ory l i fe t erm on C ou nt4. M ac k m a d e n o o b

je c tio n s to th e P S I . A tse nt enci ng , M ac k m ade no o bj ec t i on s t o the P S I, bu tm ov ed for a dow nw a r d de pa rtur e ba s e d on hi s a ge a nd he a l th. M a c k r e f us e d t o a dm i torde ny h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . T h e c o u rt d e n ie d th e d o w n w a r d d e p a rtu r e , f in d in g n o b a s is6

f ori tunde rthe f

a c t s , a nd not i ng tha ti tha d no di s c r e t i on be c aus e C ount4 c a rr i e d a m a nda t ory l i f

e s e nt e nc e . T he c ourta dopt e d the P S I a nd, a f t e rc ons i de r i ng the s e nt e nc i ng f

a c t or s of 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , s e nt e nc e d M a c k t o 360 m onths on C ou nt s 1 throu gh 3, 12 0 m on ths on C ou nt s 5 and 6 , and a m andat ory l i fe i m pr i s onm e nton C ount4, a l l t o run c onc urr e nt l y . M a c k m a de no obj e c t i ons t o the sen t en ce. H e n o w ap p eal s. II . T he A pp ea l O n A ppe a l , M a c k c ha l l e nge s : ( 1) w he the rthe c ourtha d j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe of f e ns e s ; ( 2) w he the rthe c ourtpr ope r l y a dm i tt e d D oy l e ’ s t e s t i m ony ; a nd ( 3) w he the rhi s s e nt e nc e w a s i m pr ope rbe c aus e ( a ) i tw a s ba s e d on c r a c k c oc a i ne r a th e rth a n p o w d e rc o c a in e , a n d ( b ) it a m o u n te d to c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t.

1. J ur i s di c t i on M ac k fi rs tar gu es thatthe fe dera l courtl ac ked j uri sdi ct i on ov erhi s off ense s because the fe dera l autho ri t i es w er e never i nv ol ved i n h i s c as e, and h i s off ense s shou l d h ave been prosec ut ed i n st at e c ou rt . H e not es thatthe am ou ntof drug s w as sm al l and the fi re arm had n o n exus t o i nt er st at e c om m er ce . H e f urther c hal l enges ju risd icti o n o v erth e f

irea rm o ff

en se as an in v alidex er cise o f C o n g re ss ’s C o m m e r c e C lau s e p o w e r . M a c k di d notm ove t o di s m i s s the i ndi c tm e nt , a nd hi s m ot i ons f orj udgm e ntIn Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this cour

t 2 held that all dec isions handed down by the old Fifth Circuit bef ore theclose of busin ess on September 3 0, 19 81 , a

rebindingpre c e dent in th eEl eventh Circuit . 7 o f acq u i tt al d i d n o tch al l en g e th e co u rt ’ s j u ri sd i ct i o n . N ev erth el ess, b ecau se subj ec t -m att erj uri sdi ct i on cann otbe w ai ved, w e r evi ew the i ss ue de no vo . U ni t ed S t at es v. G i ra l do -P ra do , 15 0 F . 3d 13 28 , 13 29 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). I n thi s c a s e , the r e w a s no e rr or , a s the c ourtr e t a i ne d j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe of f e ns e s . F i r s t , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j ur i s di c t i on i s c ontr ol l e d by 18 U . S . C . § 3231, c onf e rr i ng j ur i s di c t i on ove r“ of f e ns e s a ga i ns tthe l a w s of the U ni t e d S t a t e s . ” 18 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 1 . A s th e o ffen ses fo r w h i ch M ackw as ch arg ed are o ffen ses ag ai n st the U ni t e d S t a t e s , s e e 18 U . S . C . § 922( g) , 21 U . S . C . §§ 841 a nd 846, a nd 26 U . S . C . § 5 68 1, the courthad j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe ca se . M o r e o v e r , th is c o u rt r e p e a te d ly h a s u p h e ld th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f b o th § 8 41 and § 92 2(g). S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. W ri gh t , 39 2 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 80 (11th C i r. 2004) , c e rt . de ni e d, 125 S . C t . 1751 ( 2005) ( uphol di ng § 922( g) ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O sburn, 95 5 F . 2d 15 00 , 15 02 (11th C i r. 19 92 ) ( § 8 41 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. C ol l i er , 478 F . 2d 268, 272- 73 ( 5th C i r . 1973) ( s a m e ) . W e a r e bound by the de c i s i on of 2 pri or panel s, and “ on l y the S up re m e C ou rtor thi s C ou rtsi tt i ng en banc can j udi c i a l l y ove rrul e apr i orpa ne l de c i s i on. ” W r i ght , 392 F . 3d a t1280 ( quot i ng U n ite d S ta te s v . M a rte , 3 5 6 F .3 d 1 3 3 6 , 1 3 4 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ) .8

F i nal l y, there i s no m er i tt o M ac k’ s c l ai m that§ 9 22 (g) i s uncon st i tut i on al as appl i ed. A l l the st atut e r equi re s i s thatthe go vernm entprov e s om e “ m i ni m al n e x u s ” to in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . U n ite d S ta te s v . S c o tt, 2 6 3 F .3 d 1 2 7 0 , 1 2 7 4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 01 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. D up re e, 25 8 F . 3d 12 58 , 12 60 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). H er e, th e te s tim o n y a t tr ia l e s tab lis h e d th a t th e f ir e a rm w a s m a n u f

a c tu r e d in M a s s a c hus e tt s a nd f

ound i n F l or i da . T hi s t e s t i m ony w a s s uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h the n ex u s. 2. D oy l e ’ s T e s t i m ony M a c k ne xta r gue s tha tthe c ourte rr e d by a dm i tt i ng D oy l e ’ s t e s t i m ony b e c au s e it w a s h ig h ly p r e ju d ic ia l.

“ T he do ctri ne of i nv i t ed error i s i m pl i ca t ed w hen a party i nd uces or i nv i t es the di s tr i c tc ourti nt o m a ki ng a n e rr or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a rr i s , 443 F . 3d 822, 823 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( qu ot i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. S t on e, 13 9 F . 3d 82 2, 83 8 (11 th C i r. 19 98 )) . U nd ersuch ci rc um st ance s, thi s c ou rti s “ prec l ud ed fr om re vi ew i ng that e rr o ro n ap p e a l.” H a rr is , 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 8 2 3 - 2 4 . H er e, M ac k d oes notdi sput e thatcoun se l i nv i t ed the error w hen h e i nform ed the c ourttha the w a nt e d D oy l e ’ s t e s t i m ony a dm i tt e d. T hus , the r e w a s no e rr or , a nd w e do notr e vi e w the i s s ue . S e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e rni ga n, 341 F . 3d 1273, 1 2 8 9 - 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( f in d in g th a t d e f

e n d a n t w h o s e c o u n s e l h a d a f f irm a tiv e ly9

s t i pul a t e d t o the pl a y i ng of at ape - r e c or de d s t a t e m e ntha d i nvi t e d a nye rr or r e s ul t i ng f

r om the j ury ’ s he a r i ng the t ape , a nd thus tha ta ny pot e nt i a l e rr orw a s not r e v e r s ib le ) . 3. S ent ence

A . C r a c k C oc a i ne In thi s thi rd ar gu m ent , M ac k ass ert s thathi s s ent ence shou l d h ave been c a l c ul a t e d ba s e d on pow de rc oc a i ne r a the rtha n c r a c k be c aus e the gove rnm e nt f a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t th e d ru g s in v o lv e d w e r e c r a c k . B e c aus e M a c k di d notobj e c tt o the s e nt e nc i ng c a l c ul a t i ons , w e r e vi e w f or p la in e rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e rt. d e n ie d , 1 2 5 S .C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . U n d e rth e g u i d e l i n e s , c o c a i n e b a s e r e f e r s t o c r a c k , w h i c h i s “ th e s tr e e tn a me f oraf orm of c oc a i ne ba s e , us ua l l y pr e pa r e d by pr oc e s s i ng c oc a i ne hy dr oc hl or i de and sod i um bi carbon at e, and u sual l y app eari ng i n a l um py, rockl i ke form . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M un oz-R ea l pe, 21 F . 3d 37 5, 37 7-78 (11th C i r. 19 94 ). T he evi dence at tri al es t abl i shed thatthe drug s f ou nd i nv ol ved crac k cocai ne. M oreover, as the go vernm entno t es , M ac k d i d n otobj ec tt o the P S I’ s f ac tual f in d in g s th a t th e o f

f e n s e in v o lv e d c r a c k . T h e r e f o r e , th e f a c ts a r e d e e m e d a d m itte d . U ni t ed S t at es v. B urge, 40 7 F . 3d 11 83 , 11 91 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). A cc ordi ng l y, there10

w as n o erro r, p l ai n o r o th erw i se, i n th e co u rt ’ s sen t en ci n g cal cu l at i o n s.

B . C rue l a nd U nus ua l P uni s hm e nt B e c aus e M a c k f

a i l e d t o r a i s e a ny obj e c t i ons t o hi s s e nt e nc e s , r e vi e w i s f or p la in e rr o r . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 8 .

“ T h e E i g h th A m en d m en t , w h i ch fo rb i d s cru el an d u n u su al p u n i sh m en t s, cont ai ns a narrow prop ort i on al i ty pri nci pl e thatappl i es t o n on capi t al se nt ence s. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M or i a rty , 429 F . 3d 1012, 1024 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng E w i ng v. C a l i f orni a , 538 U . S . 11, 20, 123 S . C t . 1179, 1185, 155 L . E d. 2d 108 ( 2003) ( i nt e rna l quot e s om i tt e d) ) . “ T he S upr e m e C ourtha s m a de i tc l e a rtha t‘ [ o] ut s i de the c o n te x t o f

c ap ita l p u n is h m e n t, s uc c e s s f ul c ha l l e nge s t o the pr oport i ona l i ty of s e nt e nc e s [ a r e ] e xc e e di ngl y r a r e . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a a d, 406 F . 3d 1322, 1323 ( 11th C i r . ) ( quot i ng S ol e m v. H e l m , 463 U . S . 277, 289- 90, 103 S . C t . 3001, 3009, 77 L . E d. 2d 637 ( 1983) ) ( e m pha s i s a nd a l t e r a t i ons i n or i gi na l ) , c e rt . de ni e d, 126 S .C t. 1 9 6 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . O n E i g h th A m en d m en tch al l en g es, ar e vi e w i ng c ourtm us tm a ke athr e s hol d de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe se nt ence i m po se d i s gross l y di spropo rt i on at e t o the offens e c om m i tt ed a nd, i f i ti s gr os s l y di s pr oport i ona t e , the c ourtm us tthe n c ons i de rthe s e nt e nc e s i m pos e d on othe r s c onvi c t e d i n the s a m e j ur i s di c t i on a nd the se nt ence s i m po se d for com m i ss i on of the sa m e c ri m e i n o ther j u ri sd i ct i o n s.11

Id. (quo t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. R ey no l ds, 21 5 F . 3d 12 10 , 12 14 (11th C i r. 20 00 )) . “ In ge ne r a l , as e nt e nc e w i thi n the l i m i t s i m pos e d by s t a tut e i s ne i the re xc e s s i ve nor c rue l a nd unus ua l unde rthe E i ghth A m e ndm e nt . ” M or i a rty , 429 F . 3d a t1024 (quo t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. D el ac ruz- S ot o, 41 4 F . 3d 11 58 , 11 68 (10th C i r. 20 05 )) . H e r e , the s e nt e nc e w a s di c t a t e d by the s t a tut ory m a nda t ory s e nt e nc i ng prov i si on . M ac k h as offe re d n othi ng t o sho w thathi s s ent ence const i tut es cruel a nd unus ua l puni s hm e nt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ow d, 2006 W L 1594190, a t*11- 12 ( 1 1 th C ir . J u n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( c o n c lu d in g th a t 3 0 5 - m o n th s e n te n c e w a s r e a s o n ab le e ve n i n l i ghtof

de f e nda nt ’ s a ge ( 65) be c aus e de f e nda ntha d ni ne pr i orc onvi c t i ons and h ad com m i tt ed a vi ol entfe l on y a thi s a ge); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. H anna, 15 3 F . 3d 12 86 , 12 88 (11th C i r. 19 98 ) ( up ho l di ng hars her s ent ence for c ra ck c o c a in e b e c au s e “im p o s in g lo n g e rs e n te n c e s o n c r a c kc o c a in e o f f e n d e r s is ra t i on al l y r el at ed t o the l egi t i m at e purpo se of di st i ng ui shi ng betw ee n di s t i ngui s habl e drugs . . . C ongr e s s di s t i ngui s he d be tw e e n the ki nds of c oc a i ne , not t o d i sc ri m i nat e a gai nstpeop l e, bu tbecause c ra ck cocai ne i s m ore dangerous, m ore hi gh l y a dd i ct i ve, m ore e as i l y a vai l abl e, and l es s e xp ensi ve than p ow der c ocai ne. ”) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. V as qu ez , 12 1 F . 3d 62 2, 62 3 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ) ( up ho l di ng hars her s e nt e nc e f

orc r a c k be c aus e c r a c k w a s m or e da nge r ous than othe rf orm s of c oc a i ne and w arrant ed a hi gh erpenal ty) .12

A dd i t i on al l y, thi s c ou rthas r ej ec t ed chal l enges t o the di spar i ty betw ee n s e nt e nc e s f

orc r a c k a nd pow de rc oc a i ne , c onc l udi ng tha t“ the r e a r e num e r ous l e gi t i m a t e a nd non r a c e - r e l a t e d r e a s ons w hy C ongr e s s m a y ha ve i nc l ude d the d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n c o c a in e b a s e a n d c o c a in e p o w d e r , a n d it is n o t f o rth e c o u rts to i nt e r f e r e i n tha tde t e rm i na t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a tthe w s , 126 F . 3d 1234, 1251 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). T here fore , M ac k canno tshow thathi s s ent ence am ou nt s t o cruel a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t. I I I . C onc l us i on F o r th e fo reg o i n g reaso n s, w e A F F IR M M ack ’ s co n v i ct i o n s an d sen t en ces.