## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 26 52

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s

* Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

v. * East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

*

Jo se M. St rayhor n, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

14 , 20 11
Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 14 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re WOL LMAN, LOKEN , and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

PER CURI AM.

Jo se St rayhor n pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a f i r earm , in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), an d po ss es si on of crac k co cai ne wit h th e in te nt

to di st rib ut e, i n vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d pu ni sh ab le un de r 21 U.S.C.
§ 84 1( b) (1 )(C)

. Bas ed on St rayhor n’s pr io r cri m in al hi st or y , th e di st ric t co ur t 1

se nt en ced hi m as an arm ed care er cri m in al un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e) an d im po se d th e

man da to ry m in im

um se nt en ce of 18 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. St rayhor n ap pe al s , cl ai m in g th at th e se nt en ce is un co n s t i t u t i o n al be cau se it (1 ) co ns ti tu te s cru el an d

The Hon or ab le Ro dn ey W

. Si pp el

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.u n u s u a l pu ni sh m en t in vi ol at io n of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t; an d (2 ) res ts on th e

raci al ly m ot iv at ed de ci si on to try hi m as an ad ul t fo r a se co nd -d eg ree bu rg la ry of fen se
he co m m it te d at ag e fif

te en , i n vi ol at io n of th e Fi fth an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts

. W e aff irm.

Po li ce of fic ers ob ta in ed a se arch warra nt to se arch St rayhor n’s res id en ce aft er

a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t pu rch as ed co cai ne ba se (al so kn own as crac k co cai ne ) fro m

hi m

. Dur in g th e se arch

, of fic ers reco ve red a .22 cal ib er rif le an d 4.6 gr am s of co cai ne

ba se

. St rayhor n ad m it te d th at bo th it em s were hi s an d pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of

be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a f i r e a r m a n d on e co un t of po ss es si on wit h in te nt to

di st rib ut e crac k co cai ne

. The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at St rayhor n was el ig ib le fo r

se nt en ci ng as a care er o ffen de r un de r U.S. Sen te nc in g Gu id el in e § 4B 1.1 an d a s an

arm ed care er cri m in al un de r § 92 4( e) b e c a u se St rayhor n pr ev io us ly ha d be en

co nv ic te d of two felo ny dr ug of fen se s and se co nd -d eg ree bu rg la ry . As a res ul t, t he

fir earm s ch arg e carr ie d th e m an da to ry m in im um se nt e n c e of 18 0 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t.

St rayhor n ob

jecte d to be in g se nt en ced as ei th er an arm ed care er cri m in al un de r § 92 4( e) or a care er of

fen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1

. He co nt en de d th at th e se co nd

de gr ee bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on i n M i ss ou ri st at e co ur t di d no t sa ti sf y th e vi ol en t cri m e

pr ed ic at e o f ei th er pr ov is io n. He n ot ed th at th e b ur gl ary oc cu rred in 19 91 when he

was fif te en y ears ol d. He an d an ot he r m in or b r o k e i n to th e lo cal hi gh sc ho ol an d

st ol e cas h st or ed on th e pr em is es

. The pr os ecu ti on su cces sf ul ly pe ti ti on ed to try hi m

as an ad ul t an d he was su bs eq ue nt ly co nv ic te d. St rayhor n arg ue d th at be cau se th e

m an da to ry m in im

um se nt en ce un de r § 92 4( e) wou ld no t ha ve be en tri gg ered bu t fo r

th e d eci si on to try him

as a n a du lt , it s i m

po si ti on was e xc es si ve an d u nf ai r, so as t o

co ns ti tu te cru el an d un us ua l pu ni sh m en t un de r th e Eig ht h Am e n dm en t. He al so

arg ue d th at th e se c o n d

- d e g ree bu rg la ry of a no n- dwe ll in g sh ou ld no t be cl as si fie d

cat eg or ic al ly as a “ cri m e of vi ol e n c e” pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1

, es pe ci al ly in

ci rcu m st an ces su ch as t he se

.

-2

-T he dis tr ic t co ur t expr es se d m is gi vi ng s ab ou t se nt en ci ng St ray hor n as an ar m ed

c a r e e r cri m in al an d was pa rti cu la rly tro ub le d th at im po si ti on of th e m an da to r y

m in im um se nt en ce hi ng ed on th e de ci si on to try St rayh o r n a s an ad ul t fo r se co nd

de gr ee bu rg la ry in 1 9 9 1

. The di st ric t co ur t in di cat ed th at it wou ld no t im po se as

se ve re a se nt en ce if ou r ci rcu it ’s pr eced en t di d no t co m pe l th a t r es ul t. Co nc lu di ng

th at it ha d no ot he r ch oi ce, th e d i s t ric t co ur t se nt en ced St rayhor n to 18 0 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t o n e ach co un t, t o ru n c on cu rren tl y

.

St rayhor n ren ews hi s Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m on ap pe al an d co nt en ds th at th e

us e of th e se co nd -d eg ree bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on as a ba si s fo r th e arm ed care er cri m in al

pr ov is io n of § 92 4( e) vi ol at es hi s rig ht to du e pr oc es s un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t an d

eq ua l pr ot ect io n un de r th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t. He al so as se rts th at n o t ev ery

co nv ic ti on fo r se co nd -d eg ree bu rg la ry of a no n- dwe ll in g sh ou ld be tre at ed as a cri m e

of vi ol en ce un de r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 an d as ks th at we rev is it ou r pr io r ho ld in gs to th e

co nt rary. W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er a gi ve n se nt en ce v i o l a t es th e Eig ht h

Am en dm en t, Uni te d St at es v. W ei s, 48 7 F.3 d 11 48

, 11 51 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ), whe th er

se nt en ci ng St rayhor n as an a r med care er cri m in al pu rs ua nt to § 92 4( e) vi ol at es hi s rig ht s un de r th e Fi fth an d Fo u r t een th Am en dm en ts

, Uni te d St at es v. Bu ck ne r, 89 4

F.2 d 97 5, 97 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ), an d whe th er a pr io r co nv ic ti on of a pa rti c u l a r cri m e

qu al ifi es as a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” un de r th e care er of fen de r pr ov is io n of § 4B 1.1

, Uni te d S ta te s v . Ty le r, 58 0 F .3d 72 2, 7 24 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

W e h av e rep eat ed ly hel d t ha t th e m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc in g p ro vi si on s

in § 92 4( e) do no t vi ol at e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Harri s,

32 4 F.3 d 60 2, 60 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ); Uni te d St at es v. Yr i k o vk sy, 25 9 F.3 d 70 4, 70 7
(8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). Ack no wled gi ng th is

, St rayhor n ur ge s th at th is li ne of cas es is cal le d

in to qu es ti on by th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Grah am v. Fl or id a, 13 0 S. Ct

. 20 11

, 2 0 3 3

- 3 4 (2 01 0) (h ol di ng th at im po si ti on of a li fe-wi th ou t-p aro le se nt en ce on a juv en il e who ha d co m

m it te d a no n- ho m ic id e of fen se co ns ti tu te d cru el an d un us ua l

pu ni sh m en t in vi ol at io n of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t). St r a y ho rn ’s arg um en t is

-3

-fo recl os ed by o ur de ci si on in Uni te d St at es v. Sco tt , 6 10 F.3 d 10 0 9

, 1 0 1 8 ( 8 t h Ci r.

20 10 ) (rejec ti ng Eig ht h Am en dm en t ch al le ng e to li fe sen te nc e fo r dr ug of fen se an d

no ti ng th at Grah am di d no t in vo lv e “ th e us e of pr io r of fen se s co m

m it te d as a juv en il e

to en ha nc e an ad ul t con vi ct io n” an d “ di d n ot cal l i nt o q ue st io n th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y
of us in g pr io r co nv i c t i on s, juv en il e or ot he rwis e, to en ha nc e th e se nt en ce of a

co nv i c te d ad ul t” ). Acco rd in gl y , we reject th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t ch al le ng e to th e

se nt en ce.

St rayhor n ne xt as se rts th at th e de ci si on to try hi m a s a n ad ul t in 19 91 was
raci al ly m ot iv at ed an d th at cl as si fy in g hi m as an arm ed care er cr im in al on th e b as is

of th at ta in te d con vi ct io n vi ol at es hi s ri gh t t o d ue pro ces s and eq ua l pro te ct io n. “ A

pe rs on cl ai m in g un eq ua l en fo rcem en t of a faci al ly ne ut ral st at ut e m us t sh ow bo th th at

th e en fo rcem en t ha d a di sc riminat or y effe ct

, an d th at th e en fo rcem en t was m ot iv at ed
by a di sc riminat or y pu rp os e.” Uni te d St at es v. Bel l, 86 F.3 d 82 0, 82 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ).

Not wit hs ta nd in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s co m m en ts at the se nte nc ing he ari ng reg ard in g th e

effe ct th at cu lt ur al bi as es m ay ha ve ha d o n t he de ci si on to try Strayho rn as a n a du lt

i n 1 9 91

, th ere is no ev id en ce of di sc riminat or y effe ct or pu rp os e to su bs ta nt i a t e

St rayhor n’s eq ua l p ro te ct io n a rg um en t.

W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at ou r go v e r n i n g pr eced en t req ui res th e

im po si ti on of th e m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce of 18 0 m on th s ’ i m pr is on m en t,

pu rs ua nt to th e arm ed care er crim in al pr ov is io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e). Bec au se we

fin d no erro r in im

po si ng th is se nt en ce, we ne ed no t co ns id er St rayhor n’s cl ai m th at

se co nd -d eg ree bu rg la ry of a no n- dwe ll in g do es no t co ns ti tu te a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce”

un de r th e car eer o ffen de r pr ov is io n o f § 4 B1 .1.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-