United States v. Moore
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10935
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Moore, a four-time convicted felon, possessed a firearm on a night in 2007, triggering a potential Armed Career Criminal Act penalty.
- Indictment charged Moore with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- Moore underwent a competency evaluation finding mild mental retardation but competent to stand trial; he pleaded guilty under a written agreement.
- PSR listed four qualifying prior offenses (two violent felonies: aggravated burglary; two crack cocaine offenses), making him an Armed Career Criminal under § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
- Moore received a four-level firearm-offense enhancement; government could not locate a key witness to confirm pointing/hitting with the gun, leading to a negotiated guideline reduction to 151–188 months, but the 180-month mandatory minimum under § 924(e) remained.
- District court sentenced Moore to 180 months, at the bottom of the original guideline range, and Moore appealed challenging the mandatory minimum under the Eighth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mandatory minimum 180 months violates the Eighth Amendment. | Moore argues mandatory minimum is grossly disproportionate given mild mental retardation. | The government contends the sentence is constitutional and consistent with precedent allowing mandatory minimums, even for mentally limited defendants. | No Eighth Amendment violation; sentence upheld. |
| Whether mitigating factors like mental retardation render the penalty grossly disproportionate. | Moore asserts reduced culpability should preclude a substantial mandatory sentence. | Disproportionality is not shown; substantial deference to legislative sentencing schemes is warranted. | Disproportionality not shown; sentence constitutional. |
| Whether Graham v. Florida's protections for juveniles apply to Moore's non-capital, adult, term-of-years sentence. | Graham’s logic about youth and rehabilitation could render the sentence unconstitutional for an adult with cognitive limitations. | Graham does not apply; Moore is an adult, and Graham targeted life-without-parole for juveniles, not term-of-years sentences. | Graham not controlling; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (narrow proportionality principle permits substantial discretion for legislatures)
- Layne v. United States, 324 F.3d 464 (6th Cir. 2003) (gross disproportionality requires extreme disparity, not mere proportionality)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (gross disproportionality review limited to extreme cases)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (punishment grossly disproportionate only in extreme circumstances)
- Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) (capital punishment and proportionality principles addressed in egregious cases)
- Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910) (early proportionality articulation guiding punitive limits)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (mentally retarded defendants face culpability considerations; not categorically exempt from punishment)
- United States v. Warren, 973 F.2d 1304 (6th Cir. 1992) (Armed Career Criminal Act withstands Eighth Amendment review under facts similar to Moore)
- United States v. Pedigo, 879 F.2d 1315 (6th Cir. 1989) (early treatment of mandatory minimum proportionality under Eighth Amendment)
- United States v. Cardoza, 129 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1997) (interpretation of mandatory minimum statutes under proportionality standards)
- United States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64 (4th Cir. 1995) (contemporary circuit treatment of ACCA penalties)
- United States v. Hayes, 919 F.2d 1262 (7th Cir. 1990) (distribution of crack cocaine prior offenses treated under ACCA framework)
- United States v. Reynolds, 215 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2000) (case law supporting severe criminal penalties under ACCA)