United States v. Hughes
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1388
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hughes pled guilty to attempting to entice a minor to engage in a criminal sexual act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
- He was sentenced to the mandatory minimum ten years’ imprisonment under § 2422(b).
- Hughes challenged the sentence as cruel and unusual punishment and as violative of due process and equal protection; the district court denied the challenge.
- Hughes engaged in online chats with someone he believed to be a 14-year-old girl; the conversation culminated in a planned in-person meeting at a park in Kentucky.
- The Government argued the minimum sentence was rationally related to Congress’s interest in curtailing online enticement of minors; Hughes disputed that claim on proportionality and equal protection grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2422(b)’s ten-year minimum is grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment | Hughes argues the minimum is grossly disproportionate to his offense. | The government defends the minimum as a rational response to internet-based enticement of minors. | Not grossly disproportionate; the minimum survives Eighth Amendment review. |
| Whether the mandatory minimum under § 2422(b) violates equal protection by distinguishing § 2422(b) from § 2423(b) offenders | Hughes claims a rational basis issue due to disparity with § 2423(b) offenders. | Differences in elements justify different punishments; § 2422(b) targets solicitation/enticement. | Rational basis exists; no equal protection violation. |
| Whether prosecutorial charging decisions under § 2422(b) raise due process concerns | Prosecution under § 2422(b) with a mandatory minimum reflects arbitrary charging. | Charging discretion lies within prosecutors' broad prosecutorial prerogative. | No due process problem; charging discretion is permissible. |
| Whether the case presents a due process challenge that is better raised as an Eighth Amendment claim | Due process challenges to the sentence should void the minimum. | Such arguments are more appropriately addressed under the Eighth Amendment. | Substantive due process claims fail; Eighth Amendment analysis governs the core issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (extreme penalties required for gross disproportionality; example of high severity conduct)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (narrow proportionality; not strict proportionality between crime and sentence)
- United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2000) ( §2422(b) requires persuasion/enticement; separate intents recognized)
- United States v. Jones, 569 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of constitutional challenges to sentence)
- United States v. Angwin, 560 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2009) (rational basis for different punishments between related offenses)
- United States v. Cecil, 615 F.3d 678 (6th Cir. 2010) (separation of powers and enforceability of mandatory minimums)
- United States v. Nagel, 559 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming constitutionality of certain mandatory minimums under Eighth Amendment)
- United States v. Farley, 607 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2010) (tenable proportionality for long mandatory minimums in child-sex offenses)