FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 25, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 07- 15171 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 8 0 1 8 3 - C R - D MM 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 H A R R Y D . D O R V A L , 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 25, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T 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: H arry D o rv al ap p eal s h i s sen t en ces o f th e m an d at o ry m i n i m u m 1 2 0 m o n th s’ i m pri sonm entfor tw o cou nt s of di stri bu t i on of 50 gram s or m ore of c ra ck cocai ne,We note that it is unclear that Dor val pre serve d an Eighth Amendment claim bef ore the 1 dis trict c o urt. N ev erth e le s s , un d er e it h er p lain er ro r o r d en o v o rev iew , D o r

v al’ s c laim

f ail s . We further note that Dorval does not raise theclaim that the disparity between sentenc es for

crack offenses and c ocaineoffenses violates the F ifth Amendment. In any event, the Supreme Court’s rec ent opinion involving the disparity does not aff

ect statutory

mandatory

minimumsentenc es. See Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558, 571 (2007). 2 in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . D o rv a l w a s in d ic te d f

o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s 5 0 g r a m s o rm o r e o f c r a c k , in vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 846, tw o c ount s of di s tr i but i on of

c r a c k a nd one c ountof po ss es si on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne, i n v i ol at i on of § 8 41 . D orval pl ea ded g u i l ty t o al l co u n t s w i th o u ta w ri tt en p l ea ag reem en t . O v er D o rv al ’ s o b j ect i o n s, the c our ts e nt e nc e d D orva l t o 120 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nton e a c h of the di stri bu t i on coun t s, t o b e s erved con curr ent l y. T he courtdi d n oti m po se se nt ence s f orthe c ons pi r a c y orpos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e of f e ns e s , a nd the g o v e rn m e n t f

a ile d to b r in g th is o m is s io n to th e c o u r t’s a tte n tio n . D orva l now appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e s , a r gui ng tha tthe m a nda t ory m i ni m um se nt ence re qu i re d u nd er§ 8 41 vi ol at es the F i fth and E i gh th A m endm ent s. In 1 ad d it io n , th e g o v er n m en t arg u es th at th er e w as p lain er ro r in th e d istrict co u rt’s fai l u re t o i m p o se sen t en ce o n tw o co u n t s t o w h i ch D o rv al p l ead ed g u i l ty. W e r e vi e w c ons t i tut i ona l que s t i ons de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r ow n, 364 F . 3d 12 66 , 12 68 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). S ec t i on 84 1(b)(1)(A ) provi des, i n p art , that

“ any per son w ho vi ol at es subsec t i on (a ) of thi s s ec t i on shal l be se nt ence d as3

f ol l ow s . . . t o at e rm of i m pr i s onm e ntw hi c h m a y notbe l e s s tha n 10 y e a r s or m or e tha n l i f

e . . . ” 21 U . S . C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) . T hi s c our tha s he l d tha t§ 841( b) ( 1) doe s notvi ol a t e e qua l pr ot e c t i on ordue pr oc e s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S ol om on, 848 F .2 d 1 5 6 , 1 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . T h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t, w h ic h f o rb id s c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t, c o n ta in s an a rr o w p r o p o rtio n a lity p r in c ip a l th a t ap p lie s to n o n c ap ita l s e n te n c e s . 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 (200 3). T he S up re m e C ou rthas m ade i tcl ear that , “ [o] ut si de the cont extof capi t al pu ni shm ent , succ es sf

ul chal l enges t o the prop ort i on al i ty of s ent ence s [ ar e] e xc e e di ngl y r a r e . ” S ol e m v. H e l m , 463 U . S . 277, 289, 103 S . C t . 3001, 3009, 77 L . E d. 2d 63 7 (19 83 ). T hi s c ou rtre peat edl y has af fi rm ed thatthe di stri ctcourt s are

“ bound by the s t a tut ory m i ni m um s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 13 33 n. 10 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). “ M oreover, a s ent ence w hi ch i s nototherw i se cruel a nd unus ua l doe s notbe c om e s o s i m pl y be c aus e i ti s m a nda t ory . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a a d, 406 F . 3d 1322, 1324 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T hus , D orva l ’ s F i f th A m e ndm e nt e q u a l p r o te c tio n a n d E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t a r g u m e n ts are fo recl o sed b y th i s co u rt ’ s b i n d i n g p reced en t , an d w e affi rm h i s sen t en ces. W e d e c lin e to a d d r e s s th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e c o u r t f a ile d to s e n te n c e D o rv a l o n tw o c o u n ts . A lth o u g h ap a r ty m a y r a is e a n y a r g u m e n t in4

s u p p o r t o f

aju d g m e n t, ap a rty w h o h a s n o t ap p e a le d m a y n o t b r in g a n a r g u m e n t in oppos i t i on t o aj udgm e ntora tt a c k the j udgm e nti n a ny r e s pe c t , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A m e r i c a n R y . E xpr e s s C o. , 265 U . S . 425, 435- 36, 44 S . C t . 560, 564, 68 L . E d. 1 0 8 7 ( 1 9 2 4 ) , o r“h itc h ar id e o n h is a d v e r s a ry ’s n o tic e o f ap p e a l” to “e n la r g e h is r i ght s unde rthe j udgm e ntordi m i ni s h thos e of the oppos i ng pa r ty . ” C a m pbe l l v. W a i n w r i g h t , 7 2 6 F. 2 d 7 0 2 , 7 0 4 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 8 4 ) ; s e e a l s o Fe d . R. A p p . P. 4 (b )(1 )(B ) (“ W h en th e g o v ern m en ti s en t i t l ed t o ap p eal , i t s n o t i ce o f ap p eal m u st be f i l e d i n the di s tr i c tc ourtw i thi n 30 da y s a f t e rthe l a t e rof: ( i ) the e ntry of the j udgm e ntoror de rbe i ng appe a l e d; or( i i ) the f i l i ng of anot i c e of

appe a l by a ny de f e nda nt . ” ) . T hus , by f

a i l i ng t o f

i l e ac r os s - appe a l , the gove rnm e ntha s not prop er l y pre se rved the i ss ue. AF F I R ME D.