range to be 210 to 240 months and sentenced Humanik to 210 months in prison.
Humanik appeals his sentence, arguing that it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment
and that it is unreasonable, as it is greater than necessary to comply with the purposes set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We will affirm Humanik’s sentence for the reasons set out
Humanik’s first contention is that his sentence of 210 months in prison violates the
Eighth Amendment, as it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. This Court exercises
plenary review over most Eighth Amendment challenges. United States v. MacEwan, 445
F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006). When such a challenge is not raised in the district court, as
occurred in this case, we review for plain error
. United States v. Knight, 266 F.3d 203,
206 (3d Cir. 2001). Humanik does no more than cite United States v. Atkins and Weems
v. United States for the standard for punishment which is cruel and unusual. 536 U.S.
304 (2002); 217 U.S. 349 (1910). He does not explain why the District Court’s actions in
sentencing amounted to plain error. We find no plain error.
Humanik’s second contention is that his sentence is unreasonable. We review a
sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v.
Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009). Our analysis of a sentence is in two stages;
For plain error to be present, we must find:
(1) [A]n error was committed, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or
obvious, and (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights.
In addition, even where plain error exists, our discretionary authority
to order correction is to be guided by whether the error seriously
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. Knight, 266 F.3d at 206.