Opinion ID: 582735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Does Appellant's Sentence Violate the Eighth Amendment?

Text: 54 Appellant maintains that the vast disparity between his sentence and that of his co-defendant, Mr. Alvarez, constituted an Eighth Amendment violation. Appellant received a sentence of 380 months imprisonment; 5 Alvarez received only 60 months. As authority for this argument, appellant cites a Nebraska Supreme Court case (State v. Garcia, 216 Neb. 769, 345 N.W.2d 826 (1984)). Appellant's Brief at 40. 55 As we noted in United States v. Sardin, 921 F.2d 1064, 1067 (10th Cir.1990), 56 The sentencing guidelines incorporate the principles of equality and proportionality. Their purpose is to narrow the disparity in sentences imposed ... for similar criminal conduct by similar offenders. Guidelines Ch. 1, Pt. A.3. The guidelines mandate the sentencing court to consider the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). We have specifically recognized and endorsed this principle. United States v. Jackson, 921 F.2d 985, 987-989 (10th Cir.1990) (en banc); see also United States v. White, 893 F.2d 276, 278 (10th Cir.1990).... 57 However, [w]hile similar offenders engaged in similar conduct should be sentenced equivalently, disparate sentences are allowed where the disparity is explicable by the facts on the record. United States v. Goddard, 929 F.2d 546, 550 (10th Cir.1991) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). In this case, appellant has failed to designate a record which would enable us to evaluate the appropriateness of his sentence. Specifically, we are unable to review the presentence report or any testimony made at the sentencing hearing. Moreover, we have virtually no information regarding the sentencing of Mr. Alvarez; we do not know the full charges contained in his indictment nor his criminal history nor the sentencing court's assessment of his cooperation and/or acceptance of responsibility. 6 That being so, we cannot say that appellant's sentence was unjustified. See United States v. Jimenez, 928 F.2d 356, 364 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 164, 116 L.Ed.2d 129 (1991). Given appellant's failure to specify the source of the disparity and the details of the record, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. 58