NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 10a0059n.06 Nos. 08-2182, 08-2304 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. ROBERT McD ONEL

(08-2182) and FREDERI CK ATKI

NS (08-2304), De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN OPI NI ON

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, COLE, an d GILMAN , Ci r c uitJudg e s. RONALD LEE GILMAN, Cir cuit Judge. I n 2006, 19-y ear old Robert McDone l and 40- y e ar o ld F re de ri c k Atkin s we re a mon g a g ro up of fi ve me n e ng a g e d in a se ri e s o f a

rm e d r ob be ri e s. Following a jury trial, both me n wer e convicted on multipl e counts of interf ere nce w ith commerce by robber y in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, as well as on multiple counts of brandishing a fire arm during the commission of a violent c rime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district cour

t sentence d McDone l to 1,285 months (107 y ear s and one m o n th) in prison and Atkins to 744 mont hs (62 y ear s) of inca rce ration. On appe al, Atkins argues that his conviction was a g ainst the weig ht o f t h e ev i d ence . He further contends that th e d i s t ri ct co urt err ed in deny ing his motion to sever his tra il from that of M c D o n e l an d i n p e r

m i t t i n g t h e p r o s e c u t i o nt o qu e s t i o nA t k i n s r e g ar d i n g h i s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . In addition, both McDonel and A tkins challeng e the leng th of their sentences as constituting cr uel andNos. 08-2182, 08-2304

United States v. Mc

Donel; U nited States v. Atkins

-2- unusual punishment under the Eig hth Amendment. For the re asons set for th below, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. BACKG ROUND A. Robberies T h i s c a s e ar i s e s o u to f

a t w o - w e e k

c r i m e s p r e e i nN o v e mb e r 2 0 0 6 i n t h e D e t r o i tar e a . In total, all but one of the pe rsons responsible we re a rr es t ed fo r t h eir pa

rticipation in the arme d

ro bb e ri e s o f f

ive se pa rate bu sin e sse s. McDone l was involved in all five r obberie s along with a cohor t named J onnie C romer. The men formulate d a plan where by one of them would scope out the interior of a store a nd call the other (or other s, when a dditional accomplice s were involved) vi a cell phone to let them know when the store had f

ew patrons. Whoever wa s waiting outside the store would then e nter, a nd toge ther they

wo uld de mand c a shfr om t

he sto re e mploy ees. Accord ingto C ro me r, the pla n w a s to c omm it “basic [] in-and-out r obberie s” for “quick money ,” and they had no intention of shooting or killing any body . Duringthe robbe ries, they normally wore masks, “hoodie” sweatshirts, and g loves in an eff ort to conce al their identities. The first robber

y , on November

16, 2006, targ eted a

n AutoZ one automotive-pa rts store and inv olv e d o nly

Mc Do ne l and

Cr ome r. Cr ome r c on du c te d s ur ve ill anc e , a

nd Mc Don e l jo ine d h im inside shortly

there afte r, bra

ndishing a

.25-ca liber handgun. Cromer drove the g et-a way car . They too k a pp ro xima te ly $1 ,5 00 in c a shfr om t he sto re , w hic h th e y

the n d ivi de d b e tw e e n th e tw o o f t he m.Nos. 08-2182, 08-2304

United States v. Mc

Donel; U nited States v. Atkins

-3- On No ve mbe r 2 0, 20 06 , M c Do ne l and Cr ome r r ob be d a

se c on d Auto Z on e sto re , th is t ime with the aid of an acc omplice named Kenne th Br own. As with the first robbery , Cromer scope d out the store a

nd, at his signa l, McDonel a nd Br own joined hi m i n s i d e, car rying ha ndg uns. Cromer ag ain drove th e get -aw ay vehicle, a

nd the three men divided up the stolen ca sh, which totaled somewher e betwe en $1,000 and $1,500. For the nex t ro b bery

—of a third AutoZ one store—on N ovember 27, 2006, McDone l and Cromer re cruited A tkins to t ake the place of Br own. (B rown did not partake in any of the other

three robber ies and wa s later c harge d i n state cour t.) Duringthis robbery , both Cromer and A tkins surveilled the store , with M cD o n el entering shortly there afte r, ca

rry ing a firea rm. McDone l took somewher e betwe en $1,500 and $2,000 in cash a nd exit ed the store , with the three men re convening soon therea fter in the pa

rking lot. M cD o n el , C ro m er , an d

At k i n s s t ru ckaga i no nNo v em b er 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , t h i s t i m e t ar get i n g a Simpl y Fa shions clothing store. Afourth man, Ma urice Woodley , joined the three men and, a long wi t h M cD o n el , dro v e o n e o f t h e t wo v eh i cl es u s edd u ri n g t h e c o m m i s s i o no f t h e r o b b ery . Al t h o u gh none of the four men c onducted pr e-r obbery surveillance , Cr o m er an d At kins entere d the store

any wa y , c arr y ingfirearm s, and

too k a pp ro xima te ly

$2 00 . T his take wa s sm a lle r t ha n in the ir previous robbe ries bec ause a n armore d car

had hauled awa

y money from the store ’s safe just prior to t he ro bb e ry , le a vin g on ly the mon e y

in t he c a shre g ist e rs a vai lab le for Cr ome r a

nd Atkin s. Unha pp y with t

his re lativ e ly

pa ltr y sum, t he fo ur me n d e c ide d to ro b a

no the r s tor e a lmo st immediately

upon rec onvening

.Nos. 08-2182, 08-2304

United States v. Mc

Donel; U nited States v. Atkins

-4- Th e fi ft h r ob be ry oc c ur re d w ith in a

n hour o f t

he Simp ly

F a sh ion s r ob be ry , w ithMc Do ne l, Cromer, Atkins, and Woodley targ eting a Murray ’s Discount Auto Store. F or this robbery , Cromer

and Atkin s c on du c te d surv e ill anc e , and Mc Do ne l and Woo dle y , up on be ing sig na le d b y the ir

acc omplices inside, enter ed the store brandishing firea rms and took approximately $3,000 in cash. B. Arr ests By late November 2006, Detroit police wer e paying “spec ial attention” to the ty pes of store s robbed by McDone l, Cromer, and the ir three acc omplices. Numerous store employ ees had seen the men and their

vehicles, a

nd store sec urity

came ras had captur ed the robberies on vide otape, ther eby pr ov idi ngthe po lic e wi th lim ite d ph y sic a l de sc ri pti on s of the ro bb e rs . On De c e mbe r 7, 20 06 , a c a ll went out over the police radio to be on the lookout f or a black male matching McDone l’s phy sical descr iption and wear ing the ty pe of c lothes that the five me n h ad wo rn during the r obberie s. An office r observe d McDone l le aning ag ainst the wall of a Murra y ’s Discount Auto Store that same day and, noticing that he matche d the desc ription provided in the ca ll, approac hed McD onel and patted him do wn . Wh e n th e of

fi c e r d isc ov e re d th a t Mc Do ne l was weari ng late x g lov e s si mil ar t o th os e used in the robbe ries and ha d a loade d revolve r in his coat pocke t, he ar rested Mc Donel. Duringthe interrog ations that followed his arr est, McDone l admitted that h e had bee n planning to rob the Murra y ’s Discount Auto S t o re wh ere he wa s arr ested. McD onel furthe r confe ssed to having participated in the Novembe r 20 and 27 AutoZ one robbe ries. I n the months following Mc Donel’s a rre st, Atkins co m m i t t ed thre e additional ar med

ro bb e ri e s w ithCr ome r. Th e tw o me n r ob be d a F a mil y Do lla r S tor e and

a Rite Ai d Ph arm a c y

in Marc h 2007, as we ll as a second Family Dollar S tore in April 2007. Duringa subseque nt attemptedNos. 08-2182, 08-2304

United States v. Mc

Donel; U nited States v. Atkins

-5- robber y of a CVS Pharmac y in April 2007, a st ore patron punched Atkins in the face a nd disarmed him, causing Atkins to flee

. Whil e running from the s tore, Atkins dropped his cell phone, which the police used to tra ck down a nd arr est Atkins the following day

. C. P r oc e dur al b ac kgr ound Mc Do ne l w a s c ha

rg e d w ithfi ve c ounts of int e rf e re nc e wi th c omm e rc e by rob bery , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and five counts of br andishing a fire arm duringthe commission of

a vio le nt c ri me , in

vio latio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 4( c )( 1) (A )( ii) . Atk ins wa s c ha rg e d w iththr e e c ounts of ea ch off

ense. ( Atkins was neve r char g ed in conne ction with the three 2007 robber ies.) Woodley and Cromer , who had a lso been arr ested, e ntere d g uilty pleas to similar counts prior to trial a nd ag ree d to testify

ag ainst McDonel a

nd Atkins in ex chang e for reduc ed sente nces. Prior to trial, Atkins filed a mot ion to sever his trial from that of McDonel, pointing out t hat the g overnme nt intended to introduce r esponses McDone l g ave during a police interr og ation at the time of his a

rre st that implicate d Atkins in one of the robbe ries. Atkins contende d that prese nting these re sponses to the jury in a joint trial wo u l d v i o late his rig hts under the Six th Amendment’s Confrontation Clause bec ause Mc Donel would not be testify ing. T he district court denied Atkins’s motion, but ordered that the r esponses identify ing A tkins as an ac complice be reda cted. To pr event calling the jury ’s attention to the omitted portions, the court fur ther order ed that a reda cted ve rsion of the interr og ation transcr ipt be rea d to the jury rathe r than be introduced in wr itten form. Following a six -day

jury trial, McDone l and Atkins were convicted on a ll co u n ts charg ed. Mc Do ne l w a s se nte nc e d to 1, 28 5 mont hs in p ri so n, and

Atkin s w a s se nte nc e d to 74 4 mo nth s. B oth

me n f ile d ti me ly

a pp e a ls.Nos. 08-2182, 08-2304

United States v. Mc

Donel; U nited States v. Atkins

-6- II. AN AL YSI S A. Overview On appe al, Atki n s ar gu es that (1) his convic tion was ag ainst the weig ht of the evide nce prese nted at trial, (2) the district court e rre d in denying his motion to sever his trial fr om t h at of McDone l, ( 3 ) t h e dis trict court imper missibl y allowed the pr osecution to inquire into his prior

c on vic tio ns , a

nd (4 ) t he le ng th o f h is s e nte nc e vio late s th e Ei g hth Am e ndme nt’ s p ro hib iti on a g a ins t

crue l and unusual punishment. Mc Donel’s a ppeal c halleng es only

the leng th of his sentence . Eac h issue is addresse d in turn below. B. Suffic ie nc y o f the e vid e nc e ag ain stAt kins Atkins first contends that the dist rict court err ed when it denied his m otion for a judg ment of ac quittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Fe dera l Rules of Criminal Proc edure . “[W ]here, as he re, a defe ndant does not re new his m otion for judgment of acquittal for insufficienc y of the e vidence at the c los e of

a ll the pr oo fs , a

pp e llate re vie w i s li mit e d to de te rm ini ngwh e the r t he re wa s a

manif e st

m i s ca rr i ag e of justice.” United States v. Childs , 5 3 9 F

. 3 d 5 5 2 , 5 5 8 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c it a ti on and int e rn a l qu otatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) . “ Suc h a mis c arr ia g e of jus tic e oc c ur s o nly

if the re c or d is de vo id of evidence pointi ng to guilt.” Id

. F ur the rm or e , in re vie wi ng the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , we wi ll view the e vidence “in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution.” Uni t ed S t a t es v. Abboud , 438 F.3d 554, 589 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Atkins’s claim rests on two conte ntions. First, h e as s er t s that the ce ll phone rec ords int ro du c e d by the pr os e c uti on that purp or te dly do c ume nt dis c us sio ns be tw e e n Atkin s and his

a c c omp lic e s are too iso late d in tim e and are too sh or t in duratio n to est a

bli sh his g uil t. A tki ns a lsoNos. 08-2182, 08-2304

United States v. Mc

Donel; U nited States v. Atkins

-7- surmises that other pe ople living at his home during the rele vant t ime period mi g ht have ma de the calls. In addition, Atkins hig hlights various discrepa ncies in the testimony of Cromer a nd Woodley in an ef fort to attac k their cr edibility as witnesses. Neither of Atkins’s arguments is persuasive. A tkins point s to no evidence prese nted at trial to counter the g overnme nt’s showing that the ce ll phone rec overe d at t he scene of the CVS robbery belong ed to him and was use d to call McDone l, Cromer, and Woodley in connec tion wit h the

ro bb e ri e s. An d a lth ou g h A tki ns ide nti fi e s in c on sis te nc ie s in Cr ome r’ s and

Wo od le y ’s te sti mony

(a ll relating to minor details such as their f amiliarity with guns, w hether

they drank vodka

befor e one of the ro bb e ri e s, and

ho w the y be c a me inv olv e d in

the ro bb e ri e s) , our ro le is not to we ig h the c re dib ili ty of witnesses on r eview. See U nited S t a t es v. Malisz ewski , 161 F.3d 992, 1006 ( 6th Cir. 1998) (holding that the appe llant’s “attac k on the cr edibility of prosec ution witnesse s g ets her now here ”

on a pp e a l be c a

us e the c ourt

“ dr aw[s ] al l ava ila

ble inf e re nc e s and

re so lve [s] a ll issu e s o f c re dib ili ty in f a vo r o f t he jur y ’s ve rd ic t” ). No r i s th e re c or d o the rw ise dev oi d of evi de nc e of Atkin s’ s g uil t. B oth Cr ome r a nd Woo dle y , tw o o f A tki ns ’s a c c omp lic e s, te sti fi e d in de ta il a s to his inv olv e me nt i n three of the a

rmed robbe ries, and the y

identified Atki ns in videotapes of the robberies captured by the stores’ se curity

came ras. The district c ourt there fore proper ly denied Atkins’s Rule 29 motion. C. De nia l of A tk ins’ s m ot ion to se ve r tr ial s Atkins nex t argues that the district cour t erre d in denying his mot ion to sever his trial fr om that of McDone l, contending that the prosec ution’s use of response s g iven by McDone l during an interrog ation at t he ti me of his arr est was prejudicial. Duringthis int err og ation, McDone l confe ssed to robbing one of the AutoZ one stores w ith another person known as “ O.G.” ( short for “ Orig inalNos. 08-2182, 08-2304

United States v. Mc

Donel; U nited States v. Atkins

-8- Ga ng ste r, ” a nic kn a me fo r A tki ns ). Pr ior to t ri a l, t he dis tr ic t c ourt

ru le d th a t th os e re sp on se s in which McD onel identified Atkins as a n acc omplice would be suppre ssed, and it furthe r orde red that the re dacte d interrog ation transcr ipt be re ad into evidenc e to pre vent the jury from knowingabout the re dactions. The prose cution then introduce d this evidence at tri al b y h aving the police of fice r who conducte d the interrog ation rea d for the jury the questions he aske d and McD onel’s answ ers. F or the fi rs t tw o q

ue sti on s, the pr os e c uto r n ote d th e se qu e nti a l numbe r o f t he qu e sti on

a sk e d ( i.e ., “ With reg ard to the f

irst question y ou asked, w hat did y ou ask him? ”), but upon Atkins’s o b j ec t ion, the

c ourt or de re d th e pr os e c uto r t o r e fr a in f ro m r e fe rr ingto t

he or de r o f t

he qu e sti on s. Th e c ourt

a lso instructed the jury

that the interrog ation response s were to be used a s evidenc e ag ainst McDonel

o nly . Atkins nonetheless maintains that, despite the c ourt’s ef forts, he w as pre

judiced by

the inc lus ion of Mc Do ne l’ s r e sp on se s. Reg ardle ss of the merits of his ar g ument, the claim is w aived beca use Atkins f

ailed to rene w his motion at the close of all the e vidence . “A motion to sever c ounts or co-de fenda nts is deemed waived if it is not rene wed at the end of the evidenc e.” Un ite d Stat es v . H arris , 293 F.3d 970, 975 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation ma rks omitted). There is no evidence in the rec ord that A tki ns ’s tr ia l c ouns e l r e ne we d h is m oti on a t any tim e , an d Atk ins make s no suc h c on te nti on in his br ie f. Atkin s h a s th e re fo re wa ive d th is c la im o n a pp e a l. D. Evi de nc e of A tk ins’ s pr iorc onv ic ti ons I n a dd iti on

to h is c la ims re g ard ingthe su ff ic ie nc y of the e vidence and th e de nia l of his motion to sever , Atkins argues t hat the district cour t erre d in permitting the pr osecutor to que stionNos. 08-2182, 08-2304

United States v. Mc

Donel; U nited States v. Atkins

-9- him about his prior convictions for br eakingand ente ring and for arme d robber

y . The district cour

t had rule d prior to Atkins’s testimony that this evidence was in admissible under Rule 609 of the Fe dera l Rules o f Evidence . But shortly there afte r, the followingexchang e occ urre d betwee n the prosec utor and Atkins during cross-e x amination: Q. No w, y ou wo uld

n’ t wa nt y our fa c e to be s een h ol di ng a gun a t a robber y sce n e, wo uld y ou? Imean, let’ s be truthful, y ou wouldn’t wa nt t hat, r ig ht? A. No , s ir . I

me an, any

bo dy wo uld n’ t w ant t hat. Q

. Al l rig ht. So y ou c a n re c og nize tha ta s k i m a s k

c an c o n c e a l a person’ s fac e, ca

n’t y ou? A. Ye s. Q. You ca

n rec og nize—and y ou woul d n ’t want y our fing erpr ints to be fo un d at th e sc e ne of

a c ri me , r ig ht? A. Ig uess not. Depe nds on the scene of the c rime. Q. Oh, so an opportunistic cr ime, y ou don’t mind y our fing erpr ints being there ? A. Idon’t do crimes, sir. The prose cutor then r equeste d permission to question At k ins a bout his prior convictions. Over ruling trial counsel’ s objection, the district court r easone d that the prosec utor could inquire into Atkins’s criminal history

beca use Atkins had “ope ned the door” by providing the voluntary

response that “I don’t do crimes.” We reviewa di s t ri ct cour t’s evidentiar

y ruling s under the a

buse-of -discre tion standard. Uni ted States v. Gunte r , 5 5 1 F

. 3 d 4 7 2 , 4 8 3 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )

. A tk in s c h a ll e n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o urt’sNos. 08-2182, 08-2304

United States v. Mc

Donel; U nited States v. Atkins

-10- ru lin g un de r R

ule 60 9( a ) o f t

he F e de ra l Ru le s o f E vid e nc e , w hic h pr ov ide s that “ [f]o r t he purp os e of attac king the char acte r for truthfulness of a witness, . . . e vidence that an ac cused ha s been convicted of

[a felony ] shall be admitt ed if the c ourt deter mines that the probative va lue of a dmitti ng this evidence ou tweig hs its prejudicial eff ect to the a ccuse d.” Essentially , Atkins asserts that the p re j u d icial nature of his past convictions, due to their similarity to the crimes with which he was
c ha rg e d in the pr e se nt case , ou tw e ig hs the pr ob a tiv e va lue of the se c on vic tio ns re g ard inghis truthfulness. But, a s the district court found, the probative value of this evidence outweig hed its potential prejudice once A tkins “opened the door” to inquiries about t he convictions by stating that he did not “do cr imes.” See U

nited States v. Chance , 3 06 F .3 d 356 , 385 (6 th Cir . 200 2) (“ [W]he re on e pa rt y h as ‘o p en ed the door’ on a n issue, the opponent, in the trial c ourt’s discre tion, may introduce evidenc e on the same issue to rebut any false impression that may have be en cr eate d by

the ea rlier admission of evidenc e.”) . The district cour t theref ore did not abuse its discretion in permitting the prosec utor to inquire as to Atkins’s prior convictions to rebut Atkins’s st atement to the e ffe ct that he had ne ver be en involved in cr iminal activity

. E . Mc Do n el ’s a n d At k i n s ’s E i g h th Ame n d men t c l a i ms Finally , McDone l and Atkins challeng e their sentence s as violating the Eig hth Amendment’s prohibition a g ainst crue l a nd unusual punishment. B oth men wer e convic ted on multiple counts of interfe renc e with commer ce by threats or violence in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. McDone l rec eived a one-month sentence for each of his five c onvictions under this statute, with the

se nte nc e s to ru

n co nc ur re ntl y , an d Atk ins wa s sen te nc e d to a 60- mon th pr iso n ter m for e a c h o f h isNos. 08-2182, 08-2304

United States v. Mc

Donel; U nited States v. Atkins

-11- three convictions , t o ru n concur rently . (Atkins’s sentenc e wa s highe r bec ause he had two prior burg lary convictions and one prior ar med robbe ry

conviction.) I n addition, both men wer e convicted of brandishing a firea rm during eac h of the robbe ries in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

. The mandatory -minimum sentenc e under this statute is 7 y ear s for the f irst conviction a

n d a 25-y ear consec utive se nte nc e fo r e a c h s ub se qu e nt c on vic tio n. 18 U. S.C. §§ 924(c) (1)( A), (C), ( D). B eca use McDone l was convic ted on five c ounts under § 924, he r ece ived

an a dd iti on a l 1, 28 4 mo nth s, fo r a tot a l se nte nc e of 1, 28 5 mon ths (1 07 y e ars and on e mon th)

. Atkin s, who was c onvicted on 3 counts unde r § 924, re ceive d an additional 684 months, for a total sentence of 744 months (62 y ear s). As specifie d in § 924(c) (1)( D)(ii), the district court ordere d that eac h of t h e § 9 2 4 ( c ) g u nc o n v i c t i o n s r u nc o n s e c u t i v e l y. Both men argue that their sentenc es amount to c ruel and unusual punishment in viol ation of the Eig hth Amendment. McDone l notes his y outh at the time of the c rime spre e as w ell as the fa ct that he ha d no pri or fe lony c on vic tio ns , ne ve r fi re d h is gun duri ngthe ro bb e ri e s, and wa s tr y ingto provide for

his girlf riend a nd their child. Simil arly , Atkins emphasizes that beca use he w as 40 y ear s old in 2006, his sentence essentially amounts to a lifetime in prison. He f urther points out that wer e he se nte nc e d p ur su ant t o M ic hig an s tate law, his se nte nc e wo uld be a pp ro xima te ly

40 y e ars le ss. B e c a us e Mc Do n e l a

n d A t kin s f a ile d to c ha lle ng e the ir

se nte nc e s at th e ir

se nte nc inghe ari ng s, the plain-e rror

standard of

revie w is applicable

. See United States v. W atkins , 509 F .3 d 277 , 2 82 (6 th Cir. 2007). We have p re viously reje cted Eig hth Amendment cha lleng es to consec utive sentenc es imposed pursuant to § 924(c) . I n W atkins , for e x ample, the defe ndant re ceive d a 1,772-month prison sentenc e for

his participation in six arme d robber ies. The district cour t sent en ce d W akins to 188Nos. 08-2182, 08-2304

United States v. Mc

Donel; U nited States v. Atkins

-12- months of imprisonment for his robbery and conspirac y convictions, and then added a n additional 1,584 m o n t h s p u rs u ant to § 924(c) for the f irea rms violations. Id . This court re jected Watkins’s Eig hth Amendment claim on appea l, noting that “[t] his c ircuit has never held that the conse cutivesentenc e re quirement in § 924(c ) is unconstitutional.” Id

. Although w e ac knowledg ed that “the Eig hth Amendment place s an outer limit on criminal penalties that a

re g rossly disproportionate to t he offense,” Watkins’s sentenc e was “not such a c ase,” g iven the “nume rosity

and ser iousness o f [ h i s ] offenses,” the conse cutive-se ntence require ment under § 924( c), a

nd the fa ct that this court had uphe ld compara b l e s entences in similar circ umstances. Id

. at 2 8 2 -8 3 (c i t i n g Un ite d Sta te s v . B e v e rly , 369 F.3d 516, 536-37 (6th C ir. 2004) (af firming an 858-month prison sentence resulting larg ely from convictions pursuant to § 924(c)); United States v. Mark

s , 209 F.3d 5 77, 581, 583 (6th Cir. 2000) (re jecting Eig hth Amendment chal l enges to sente nces of 1,395 and 2,242 months of imprisonment under § 924(c ) for two defe ndants who committed six and nine a rmed ba n k ro b b er ies, respe ctively )). B eca use neither Mc D o n e l n o r

A tk in s h a v e p r e s e n te d

an y c o n tr ar y a u th o r it y f o r d e p arti n g f

r o m t h is p r e c e d e n t, we reje ct their Eig hth Amendment claims.

III . C ON CL USI ON For all of the re asons set for

th above, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.