is no evidence that the district court failed to take into account Diana Buchanan’s "tragic circumstances.” The presentence report develops these factors, and the district court recognized that Diana Buchanan had travelled a "rocky road.” Nevertheles L.Ed.2d 586 (1992). 10 . John Buchanan argues that the punishment disparity between crack and powder cocaine constitutes racial discrimination in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to equal protection, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. John Buchanan also argues that the guideline applicable to crack cocaine is unconstitutionally vague. We have consistently rejected these arguments and do so again. See supra note 9; see also United States v. Cherry, 50 F.3d 338, 342-44 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Fisher, 22 F.3d 574, 579-80
holding that no unconstitutional infirmity exists in the sentencing guidelines treatment of crack visavis powder cocaine holding proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose required to show equal protection violation holding that  707b does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the fourteenth and fifth amendments of the united states constitution and rejecting debtors voidforvagueness argument holding that racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that the sentencing guidelines disparate treatment of crack cocaine is not racially discriminatory under the fifth amendments equal protection guarantees