## Facts

- Reginald Buckner was convicted in federal court of possession with intent to distribute 53 grams of crack cocaine (cocaine base), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii).
- The district court sentenced Buckner to 250 months’ imprisonment under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
- The Sentencing Guidelines (and the related statutory scheme for cocaine base) treated crack far more severely than powder cocaine, using an equivalency in which one gram of cocaine base carried the same punishment as roughly 100 grams of powder cocaine.
- Congress had identified reasons for treating crack as more dangerous to society, including crack’s potency, its highly addictive nature, its affordability, and its increasing availability.
- Buckner did not appeal his conviction; he appealed only his sentence.
- On appeal, Buckner argued that the harsher crack penalties created by the 100:1 ratio were unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment (as arbitrary and irrational) and the Eighth Amendment (as cruel and unusual punishment).

## Issues

1. Whether the Sentencing Guidelines’ and statutory 100:1 crack-to-powder cocaine ratio violates the Fifth Amendment’s substantive due process requirements because it is arbitrary and irrational.
2. Whether a 250-month sentence imposed under that ratio for possession with intent to distribute 53 grams of crack constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed Buckner’s sentence.
- The court held that the 100:1 crack-to-powder ratio did not violate substantive due process because Congress had a rational basis for treating crack offenses more harshly than powder cocaine offenses.
- The court held that Buckner’s 250-month prison term was not grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore did not violate the Eighth Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- When a sentencing distinction does not involve a suspect classification or a fundamental right, the constitutional test is rational-basis review; the classification stands if it is reasonably related to legitimate governmental objectives.
- Congress may impose harsher penalties for cocaine base than for powder cocaine based on legislative judgments about relative harms (including potency, addictiveness, affordability, and availability), even if the sentencing equivalency is not derived from pharmacological “dose” parity.
- Eighth Amendment proportionality review for noncapital sentences is highly limited; a substantial prison term for serious drug trafficking conduct, imposed within the legislatively authorized framework, will not be invalidated absent gross disproportionality.

## Conclusion

United States v. Buckner held that the 100:1 crack-to-powder cocaine sentencing ratio in the federal scheme withstands Fifth Amendment rational-basis review and that a 250-month Guidelines sentence for possession with intent to distribute 53 grams of crack is not so disproportionate as to violate the Eighth Amendment; the Eighth Circuit therefore affirmed Buckner’s sentence.


United States v. Buckner, 894 F.2d 975 (1990)