United States v. Brucker
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15006
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Brucker pleaded guilty to attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) and to attempting to transfer obscene material to a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470, and was sentenced to the statutory minimum of 120 months.
- He was 62 years old at the time of the offenses.
- In the online chats, he pursued sexual activity with a person he believed was a 15-year-old; the “Lisa” persona was later revealed to be a deputy.
- Over two months, he planned a meeting, exposed himself via webcam, and brought condoms and a laptop to the encounter.
- The “Lisa” meeting was arranged in a restaurant parking lot; after identification by the deputy, Brucker admitted intent to meet a 15-year-old.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Booker-based due process limits apply to mandatory minimums | Brucker argues Booker limits apply to minimums | State that Booker has no effect on minimums | Booker's protections do not apply to statutory minimums |
| Whether the equal protection claims are viable | Disparate treatment for cyber-offenders vs. real-world offenders | Rational basis supports distinctions including danger and cooperation needs | Rational basis supports distinctions; equal protection fails |
| Whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the § 2422(b) minimum as grossly disproportionate | Minimum is disproportionate to the offense | Sentence not grossly disproportionate given offense gravity | Not grossly disproportionate; allowed under Eighth Amendment |
| Whether separation-of-powers concerns invalidate mandatory minimums | Legislature usurps judiciary's sentencing discretion | Court precedent upholds legislatures' penalties | No separation-of-powers violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Nagel, 559 F.3d 756 (7th Cir.2009) (equal protection and proportionality considerations for § 2422(b) penalties)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (discipline on proportionality and severity review)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (proportionality baseline for severe penalties)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (U.S. 2003) (life-term, proportionality considerations)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (policy-based departures limited; mandatory minimums unaffected)
- Moore, 543 F.3d 891 (7th Cir.2008) (jurisdiction to have differing federal/state penalties without equal-protection issues)
- Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2005) (advisory guidelines and non-mandatory sentencing framework; minimums unaffected)
- Roberson, 474 F.3d 432 (7th Cir.2007) (minimums preserved; general statutory context governs sentencing)