Opinion ID: 807910
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Patrick Jones

Text: Jones makes two arguments. He first argues that the district court erred in not applying the new, more lenient crack cocaine threshold under the Fair Sentencing Act. The record, however, suggests that the district court did apply the 18-to-1 ratio under the FSA. During Jones’ sentencing hearing, the Government recommended that the district court “impose a sentence within what is not technically the guideline applicable but what would be the guideline applicable if the 18 to 1 ratio were in play.” Applying an 18-to-1 ratio, Jones’ Guidelines sentence range was 210 to 262 months. The district court agreed with the Government that an 18-to-1 ratio “is within the realm of reason” and sentenced Jones to 180 months’ imprisonment—a sentence well below the minimum under the FSA. We therefore find that the district court did not err by failing to apply the crack cocaine thresholds required under the FSA. 6 Nos. 10-3130, 10-3505 & 11-1395 Jones next argues that the district court’s sentence violated the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause because it was grossly disproportionate to the crime he committed. We presume the district court’s imposition of a below-Guidelines sentence to be reasonable and review it for abuse of discretion. United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835, 837 (7th Cir. 2009). We review de novo its procedures during sentencing, including the court’s consideration of the § 3553 factors. Id. Jones contends that the disparity between his sentence and that of his co-conspirators violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Jones received a sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment while one of his co- conspirators was sentenced to 80 months’ imprisonment, and another co-conspirator, at the time of Jones’ sentencing, was facing 171 months’ imprisonment. We reject Jones’ cruel and unusual punishment argument. If the sentence is within the statutory limits, a claim of cruel and unusual punishment is normally without merit. See United States v. Gray, 611 F.2d 194, 197 n.2 (7th Cir. 1979). Moreover, if a district court has correctly calculated the Guidelines range, we assume that significant consideration has been given to avoid unwarranted disparities between sentences. United States v. Statham, 581 F.3d 548, 556 (7th Cir. 2009). In Jones’ case, the presentence report recommended a Sentencing Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. The district court correctly determined the GuideNos. 10-3130, 10-3505 & 11-1395 7 lines range, accepting the probation office’s recommendation, but then in its discretion, sentenced Jones below the minimum. Section 3553 requires the judge to consider, among other things, whether a particular sentence would create unwarranted disparities with other defendants, but only among defendants with “similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The district court indicated that it considered the disparity Jones complains of but found it warranted in light of the seriousness of the offenses, Jones’ history, and the fact that he, unlike his co-defendants, had little to offer the Government in terms of cooperation. For instance, the district court stated, “Partly my sentence in this case is influenced by my views of the relative culpability of this defendant in connection with other defendants . . . . And due to . . . my view of the severity of this individual’s offense which I do regard as severe . . . .” The district court thus adequately considered any disparity between Jones’ sentence and those of his co-defendants; and in any event, the record indicates that Jones’ conduct, level of cooperation with the Government, and history warranted such a disparity. See United States v. Statham, 581 F.3d 548, 556 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that the district court was entitled to consider the co-defendants’ cooperation with the Government in choosing their sentences). The district court did not abuse its discretion; Jones’ sentence will stand. 8 Nos. 10-3130, 10-3505 & 11-1395