United States v. Gary Sutton

226 F. App'x 638
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 20, 2007
Docket07-1141
StatusUnpublished

This text of 226 F. App'x 638 (United States v. Gary Sutton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Gary Sutton, 226 F. App'x 638 (8th Cir. 2007).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following Gary Sutton’s (Sutton) conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e), the district court 1 sentenced Sutton to 280 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release, and *639 imposed a $23,431.92 fine and $100 special assessment. Sutton appeals, challenging an evidentiary ruling by the district court and also arguing his sentence is unreasonable and so grossly disproportionate to Sutton’s offense that his sentence violates due process and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary ruling, see United States v. Johnson, 463 F.3d 803, 808 (8th Cir.2006), and the reasonableness of Sutton’s sentence, see United States v. McMorrow, 471 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 2006). We review de novo whether Sutton’s sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime committed and thus violates due process and ultimately the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. See United States v. Weis, 487 F.3d 1148, 1154 (8th Cir.2007) (rejecting the defendant’s Eighth Amendment challenge upon finding the defendant’s sentence was “not ‘the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality’” (quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 30, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1005, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)))). As an armed career criminal, Sutton faced a sentence, as specified by Congress, at or near the statutory maximum, which in this case is life imprisonment. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(h); United States v. Maloney, 466 F.3d 663, 669 (8th Cir.2006).

Having carefully considered Sutton’s arguments and the record, we find no abuse of discretion or legal error by the district court. Therefore, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Harmelin v. Michigan
501 U.S. 957 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Ewing v. California
538 U.S. 11 (Supreme Court, 2003)
United States v. Donna J. Johnson
463 F.3d 803 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Patrick Timothy McMorrow
471 F.3d 921 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Donald Louis Weis
487 F.3d 1148 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Robert E. Maloney
466 F.3d 663 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 F. App'x 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gary-sutton-ca8-2007.