Opinion ID: 506212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Arbitrary or politically-motivated sentencing

Text: 37 Appellant Barrington contends that the court's remarks at the time of sentencing indicated improper political motivation. The court's statement was as follows: 38 Let me make this general comment that will apply to this case today and I won't repeat it with each. Congress has recognized a significant problem caused by drugs in this country. Just last fall it enacted the Antidrug Abuse Act of 1986 which involves very, very stiff penalties, much stiffer than those that apply in this case. 39 What I am saying is that the people of this country through their elected representatives have made it very plain how they feel about drugs and the drug problem.... They end up in the hands of children as well as adults. 40 Now, I have before me a man who has been found guilty by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt on several repeated instances of trying to bring drugs into this country. In my opinion, based on the evidence, he has shown call[o]us disregard for the laws of this country. 41 I don't believe leniency is appropriate in this case at all. I don't think I need to say anything else. The sentence will reflect my feelings on it. 42 Clearly the first two paragraphs quoted were meant to apply to all appellants, not only to Barrington. 43 Barrington asserts that the judge was acting more as a legislator than a jurist, by imposing a sentence far exceeding the range of propriety, and that the sentence was therefore cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 44 The court might more aptly have referred to public policy considerations rather than to its own feelings, but it clearly did not abuse discretion by referring to societal concerns. Courts have very wide discretion in determining an appropriate sentence. Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559, 563, 104 S.Ct. 3217, 3220, 82 L.Ed.2d 424 (1984). It is not improper for a court to consider the adverse effects of drugs on communities, a convicted offender's persistent disrespect for the law, or his leadership role in drug trafficking activities. United States v. White, 748 F.2d 257, 261 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. Hawkins, 658 F.2d 279, 289-90 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Jackson, 649 F.2d 967, 983 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1034, 102 S.Ct. 574, 70 L.Ed.2d 479 (1981). The sentences were related to acceptable goals of punishment, and are not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses for which appellants were convicted. They were not, therefore, cruel and unusual. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 593, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 2866 (1977). We conclude that the court's sentencing violated no constitutionally protected rights. 45