FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOVEMB ER 14 , 2005 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- 10005 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -601 58 -C R -J IC 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 C L A R E N C E W A R D , 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

_________________________ ( N ove m be r14, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

C l a r e nc e W a r d appe a l s hi s l i f e s e nt e nc e i m pos e d a f

t e rhi s c onvi c t i on on f

our c ount s of pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne ba s e , a l l i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) and 8 51 , and o ne coun tof bei ng a f el on i n p osse ss i on of a f i r e a rm , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ( 1) . W e a f f i rm hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e n te n c e . W ar d rai se s f

ou r argum ent s on app ea l . F i rs t , he ar gu es hi s m andat ory l i fe s e nt e nc e , w hi c h w a s ba s e d upon hi s r e c i di vi s m , w a s c rue l a nd unus ua l puni s hm e nt i n vi ol a t i on of

the E i ghth A m e ndm e nt . A s partof thi s a r gum e nt , he c i t e s f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l the di s pa r i tyi n s e nt e nc e s f orc r a c k a nd pow de rc oc a i ne o f f e n s e s . S e c o n d , h e a r g u e s 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 1 ( e ) ’s p r o h ib itio n a g a in s t c h a lle n g e s to the va l i di tyof

as e nt e nc e - e nha nc i ng pr i orc onvi c t i on tha toc c urr e d m or e tha n f i ve y e a r s pr i ort o the c onvi c t i on a ti s s ue vi ol a t e s due pr oc e s s . T hi r d, W a r d a r gue s the im p o s itio n o f

alif e s e n te n c e b a s e d u p o n h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n s v io la te d h is S ix th A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o aj urytr i a l . F i na l l y , he a r gue s f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n s e nt e nc i ng hi m ba s e d upon adrug a m ounttha ti nc l ude d the w e ig h t o f

w a te rc o n ta in e d in th e c o c a in e b a s e . E a c h a r g u m e n t is c o n s id e r e d in turn.3 I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r e v ie w ac o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e to as e n te n c in g s ta tu te d e n o v o . U ni ted State s v . R e

y nolds , 2 1 5 F .3 d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 1 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . W e r e v ie w a r g u m e n ts r a is e d f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l f

o rp la in e rr o r . U

ni te d State s v . O lano , 1 1 3 S . C t. 1 7 7 0 , 1 7 7 6 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ; U

n i ted S ta tes v. H

a rn ess , 18 0 F . 3d 12 32 , 12 34 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) . A . Cr ue l

and U nus ual P unis hm e nt W a r d f ir s t a s s e rts h is m a n d a to rylif e s e n te n c e , w h ic h w a s b a s e d u p o n h is r e c id iv is m , w a s c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t in v io la tio n o f th e E ig h th A m e ndm e nt . I n U

ni te d State s v . L

y ons , 403 F . 3d 1248 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , the appel l antar gu ed hi s 235 -m on th sent ence i m po se d b as ed on hi s s t atus as an “ arm ed care ercr i m i nal , ” pursuantt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e ) and U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 4(b), c o n s titu te d c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t in v io la tio n o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. I d. at1 2 5 6

– 5 7 . W e rej ect ed L yo n s’ arg u m en to n th e fo l l o w i n g b asi s:

“ [r ] ec i di vi sm has l on g b ee n rec og ni ze d as al egi t i m at e bas i s f or i ncre as ed puni s hm e nt , ” a nd “ the S upr e m e C ourtha s c ons i s t e nt l ya f f i rm e d the i m pos i t i on of lo n g erse n ten ce s, ev en fo r n o n -v io len t o ff en se s, b as ed o n an o ff

en d er ’s re ci di vi sm . ” I

d. W e a l so hel d an app el l ant ’ s m andat ory l i fe se nt ence i m po se d pur s ua ntt o 21 U . S . C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) on hi s thi r d a nd f ourth c onvi c t i ons f

ordrug4

offe nses i nv ol vi ng atl ea stfi ve ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne w as no t“ cruel and u nu sual p u n is h m e n t” a s p r o s c r ib e d b yth e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . W

illis , 956 F . 2d 248, 251 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . A ddi t i ona l l y , the S upr e m e C ourtha s he l d a m a n d a to rys e n te n c e o f

lif e im p r is o n m e n t w a s n o t c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t in v io la tio n o f

th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. H arm e l i n v . Mi c hi

gan , 111 S . C t . 2680, 2701 ( 1 9 9 1 ) . W e h a v e s ta te d ac h a lle n g e to th e c o n s titu tio n a lityo f d is p a r itie s in se nt ence s betw ee n cra ck and p ow der c ocai ne i s “ w i tho utm er i t . ” U ni ted Stat es v. H arden , 37 F . 3d 59 5, 60 2 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). T he de c i s i ons i n W

illis , L y ons , a nd H

a rm e lin , ha ve notbe e n ove rrul e d a nd re m ai n g oo d l aw . A cc ordi ng l y, W ar d’ s argum entthathi s m andat ory l i fe se nt ence b a s e d u p o n h is r e c id iv is m v io la te s th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t is w ith o u t m e r it. W a r d’ s a r gum e nthi s l i f e s e nt e nc e w a s avi ol a t i on of the E i ghth A m e ndm e nt be c aus e of

the di s pa r i tyi n c r a c k a nd pow de rc oc a i ne of f e ns e s i s a l s o f

or e c l os e d by o u rp r e c e d e n t, s o h e c a n n o t s h o w p la in e rr o r . B . D u e P ro cess W ard ’ s seco n d arg u m en ti s th at2 1 U . S . C . § 8 5 1 (e)’ s p ro h i b i t i o n ag ai n st chal l enges t o the val i di ty of ase nt ence -e nh anci ng pri or conv i ct i on thatoccurre d m or e tha n f

i ve y e a r s pr i ort o the c onvi c t i on a ti s s ue vi ol a t e s due pr oc e s s . A ny one c onvi c t e d of

a n of f e ns e unde r§ 841 m a ynotc ha l l e nge the va l i di tyof apr i or5

c o n v ic tio n a lle g e d th e r e u n d e rth a t o c c u rr e d m o r e th a n f iv e y e a r s p r io rto th e d a te o f th e in f o rm a tio n a lle g in g th e p r io rc o n v ic tio n . 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 1 ( e ) . W e h a v e h e ld th a t ap p lic a tio n o f

§ 8 5 1 ( e ) is n o t av io la tio n o f d u e p r o c e s s . U

ni ted Stat es v. Wi l l i a ms , 9 5 4 F .2 d 6 6 8 , 6 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , W a r d ’s a r g u m e n t is f or e c l os e d. C . Si x th A m e ndm e nt W ar d’ s thi rd ar gu m enti s thatthe i m po si t i on of a m andat ory l i fe se nt ence b a s e d u p o n h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n s v io la te d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to aju rytr ia l. I ti s w e l l e s t abl i s he d the S i xth A m e ndm e ntdoe s notr e qui r e ade f e nda nt ’ s pr i or c o n v ic tio n s b e f

o u n d b yth e ju ry . U

ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 125 S . C t . 738, 756 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ; B lake l

yv . W as hi ngton , 1 2 4 S . C t. 2 5 3 1 , 2 5 3 6

– 3 7 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ; App re nd iv. N ew Je rs ey , 1 2 0 S . C t . 2 3 4 8 , 2 3 6 2

– 6 3 (2 0 0 0 ). A cco rd i n g l y, th i s arg u m en ti s al so f o r e c lo s e d . D . D r ug A m ount W ar d’ s f i nal ar gu m enti s thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n sent enci ng hi m base d upon adrug a m ounttha ti nc l ude d the w e i ghtof w a t e rc ont a i ne d i n the c oc a i ne base . A bsentcontrol l i ng prec edent , there can b e no p l ai n err or See U ni ted Stat es v . L eJ arde - R ada , 319 F . 3d 1288, 1291 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . B e c aus e ne i the rw e nor the S upr e m e C ourtha s c ons i de r e d the i s s ue tha tW a r d r a i s e s i n thi s a r gum e nt , he6

h a s n o t d e m o n s tr a te d a n e rr o rth a t w a s “p la in ,” a n d th e r e f o r e c a n n o t p r e v a il o n th is i s s ue . M or e ove r , the j ury ’ s de t e rm i na t i on of drug w e i ghtw a s s upport e d by c o m p e te n t e v id e n c e . I I . CONCL US I ON W a r d ’s m a n d a to rylif

e s e n te n c e w a s n o t c ru e l a n du n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t in vi ol at i on of the E i gh tA m endm ent . S ec t i on 85 1(e) ’ s prohi bi t i on agai nstchal l enges t o the va l i di tyof

as e nt e nc e - e nha nc i ng pr i orc onvi c t i on oc c urr i ng m or e tha n f i ve y e a r s pr i ort o the c onvi c t i on a ti s s ue doe s notvi ol a t e due pr oc e s s . T he i m pos i t i on o f alif e s e n te n c e b a s e d o n p r io rc o n v ic tio n s d id n o t v io la te W a r d ’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to aju rytr ia l. F in a lly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t p la in lye rrin de t e rm i ni ng the a m ountof c oc a i ne ba s e tha tW a r d pos s e s s e d. AF F I RME D.