Opinion ID: 2977320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: shrewder

Text: Shrewder argues that his sentence of imprisonment for 170 months violates the Eighth Amendment because there were significant disparities between his sentence and the sentences of other co-defendants, particularly his daughter, Tracy Shrewder, who was sentenced to 97 months of 5 The defense of entrapment or inducement cannot be established if the government merely provided the opportunity to commit the crime to a defendant predisposed to commit it, and the defendant took advantage of the opportunity. See Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548–50 (1992); United States v. Kussmaul, 987 F.2d 345, 349 (6th Cir. 1993). -5- Nos. 06-4448, 06-4615, 07-3271, 07-3272 United States v. Lebreux, et al. imprisonment, and because, as a seventy-year-old man in failing health, he will likely die in prison. Upon de novo review of Shrewder’s constitutional sentencing challenge, see United States v. Martin, 526 F.3d 926, 941 (6th Cir. 2008), we conclude it also fails.6 The Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishments and “contains a ‘narrow proportionality principle’ that ‘applies to noncapital sentences.’” United States v. Olan-Navarro, 350 F.3d 551, 554 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 20 (2003) (plurality opinion)). This prohibition, however, applies only to sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. Id. Shrewder has not demonstrated that his sentence was grossly disproportionate to the crime he committed or to the sentences of his co-defendants. The district court spent considerable time calculating the applicable guideline range. The district court found sufficient evidence to set Shrewder’s base offense level at 38 and to apply a 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of dangerous weapons and a 3-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) for Shrewder’s aggravated role in the conspiracy. The district court then applied a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and a 1-level reduction for substantial assistance, resulting in an offense level of 39 and a guideline range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. The district court then carefully considered the § 3553(a) factors, varied downward to an offense level of 35, and 6 The Government asserts that because Shrewder “did not specifically argue an Eighth Amendment violation” in the district court, plain error is the proper standard of review. (Appellee’s Br. 42.) Nevertheless, because the sentencing judge did not inquire as to whether the parties had objections to the sentence, see J.A. 994–95, Shrewder is not required to demonstrate plain error on appeal, see United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865, 872 (6th Cir. 2004). -6- Nos. 06-4448, 06-4615, 07-3271, 07-3272 United States v. Lebreux, et al. imposed 170 months of imprisonment, which was within the guideline range of 168 to 210 months for that offense level. Contrary to Shrewder’s contentions, the district court explicitly considered his age, mental condition, and physical problems when applying the § 3553(a) factors and allowed a 4-level variance because of these concerns. Notably, the district court highlighted the fact that this variance permitted the court to place Shrewder in a range that made “sense along with the other people, who we have been sentencing in your case. So you’re not completely out of whack.”7 (J.A. 991–92.) Shrewder’s sentence was not identical to the other co-defendants, and specifically his daughter, because of the evidence demonstrating his aggravated leadership role and firearm possession, which enhanced his offense level. Accordingly, the district court imposed a sentence that was not grossly disproportionate and reflected both the seriousness of Shrewder’s conduct and his personal characteristics.8