FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 23, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 76 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 01 79 -KD-M-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ERIC SEBAS TION BARROW, a.k .a. ba d_red_d rag on_2 00 4, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 23 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Eric Barr ow ap pe al s h is sen te nc e o f fi fte eny ears ’ im pr is on m en t, i m

po se d aft er Ba rro w pl edgu il ty to p ro du ct io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy, in v io lati on of 1 8U.S.C. § 2 25 1( a); po ss es si on of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, in v io la ti onof 1 8 U.S.C.

§§ 22 52 A(a)(5 )(B) , 22 56 (8 )(A); an d two co un ts of d is tri bu ti ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy, invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 52 A(a)(2 ), (b )(1 ). On ap pe al , Barro w arg ue s tha t hi s s en te nc e–th e m an da to ry m in im um forvi ol at io ns of § 22 51 (a)– is , as app li edto hi m , cru el an d u nu su al an d thu s p ro hi bi te d u nd er the Eig hth Am en dm en t. 1 W e rev ie w th e le ga li ty of a s en te nc e und er the Eig ht h Am en dm en t d e n ov o. Uni te d S tate s v . Flo res , 57 2 F .3d12 54 , 12 68 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). In e va lu at in g an Eig ht h Am en dm en t ch al le ng e in a no n- cap it al cas e, we m us t fi rs t m ak e th e th res ho ldde te rm in at io n tha t the sen te nc e im po se d i s g ro ss ly dis pr op orti on at e to th e o ffen se co m

m it te d. Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo hn so n, 45 1 F .3d 12 39 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). The d efen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n o f m ak in g thi s s ho win g. Id . “ If the se nt en ce i s g ro ss ly dis pr op orti on at e, th e co urt m us t the n c on si de r th e se nt en ces im po se d o n o th ers co nv ic te d i n the same j ur is di ct io n a ndth e se nt en ces im po se d fo r co m mis si on of t he same crim e in othe r juri sd ic ti on s.” Id . (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 51 , any pers on who “ em pl oys, us es , per su ad es , in du ces , ent ic es , or c oe rces an y m in orto en ga ge in , . . . with the in te ntth atsu ch m in oren ga ge in , any sex ua ll y ex pl ic itco nduc t fo r th e p ur po se of p ro du ci ng an y vi su al de pi ct io n o f su chco nduc t o r fo r th e p ur po se of tran sm itti ng a li ve vi su al Ba rrow suf fer s from spina bifida a

nd is confined to a wheelc hair. 1 2de pi ct io n o f su chco nduc t, . . . if tha t v is ua l d ep ic ti on was p ro du cedor tran sm it te d

us in g m at eri al s tha t h av e b eenm ai le d, s hi pp ed , or tran sp orte d i n o r affe ct in g in te rs ta te or f

or ei gn co m

m erce by any

m ean s, i nc lu di ng by com pu te r” i s s ub

ject t o a m in im um sen te nc e o f fi fte eny ears ’ im pr is on m en t, wi th a m ax im um sen te nc e o f th irt y y ears . 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 1( a), (e) .

2 Inge ne ral , “ a se nt en ce wi th inth e li m it s i m po se d b y st atut e is ne ithe r ex ces si ve no r cru el an d u nu su al un de r th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t.” J oh ns on , 45 1 F.3 d at 12 43 . “ Out si de th e co nt ex t o f cap it al pu ni sh m en t, s uc ces sf ul ch al le ng es to th e p ro po rti on al ity

of p art ic ul ar s en te nc es have be enex ceed in gl y rare .” Ru m

m el v. Es te ll e, 44 5 U.S. 2 63 , 27 2, 1 00 S. Ct. 1 13 3, 1 13 8 (1 98 0) . This Co urt “ ha s n ev er fo un d aterm

of i m pr is on m en t t o v io la te th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t, an d o ut si de th e sp eci al cat eg ory

of ju ve ni le off

en de rs th e Supr em e Co urt h as fou ndon ly one to do so .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Farl ey , 60 7 F .3d12 94 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). As we n ot ed , th e o ne cas e whe rei n the Supr em e Co urt h el d asen te nc e to vi ol at e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t “ was fora se nt en ce o f li fe i m pr is on m en t wi th ou t p aro le im po se d o n a pe tty cri m in al who wrot e a b adch eckfor$1 00 , th e la te stina st rin g o f hi s rel at iv el y m in or , no nv io le ntoff

en se s.” Id .

The minimum and max imum sentences c an be inc rea sed if the de fenda nt has 2 cer tain previous convic tions. 18 U.S.C . § 2251(e) . 3Upo n re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . W e h av e rec og ni zedth atsen te nc es withi n the st atut ory li m it s g en eral ly do no t v io la te th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t, an d tha t a d efen da ntwho se sen te nc e fal ls be lo w th e st atut ory

m ax im um can no t m ak e th e th res ho ldsh owi ng of g ro ss di sp ro po rti on al ity . Jo hn so n, 4 51 F.3dat 1 24 3. Ba rro w was s en te nc edto th e st atut ory m in im um len gt h. He ca nn otcarry his bu rd enof s ho win g tha t h is se nt en ce was gro ss ly dis pr op orti on at e to th e o ffen se co m m it te d a nd , th eref

or e, he can no t s ho w th athi s s en te nc e is cru el an d u nu su al . See id . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

4MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e, co nc ur s i n re su lt .

5