United States v. Strahan

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Strahan

134 F. App'x 709

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 2005

Docket04-30907

StatusUnpublished

This text of 134 F. App'x 709 (United States v. Strahan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Strahan, 134 F. App'x 709 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

John Paul Strahan appeals the mandatory minimum fifteen-year sentence he received pursuant to his gmlty-plea conviction of conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Strahan contends, as he did at sentencing, that his sentence, as applied to the facts of his case, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Strahan asserts that under the Ninth Circuit’s opinions in Ramirez v. Castro, 365 F.3d 755 (9th Cir.2004) and Rios v. Garcia, 390 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir.2004), the district court should have considered the following facts: (1) he was merely present in his house when the transaction occurred and he did not profit from the transaction; (2) the weapons involved in the transaction were kept outside of his home in a storage shed; and (3) his only past crime was a misdemeanor assault case, for which he received a probated sentence.

However, the Ninth Circuit’s opinions are persuasive authority at most. Strahan does not point to any language in Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003), Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003), or any other Supreme Court or Fifth Circuit opinion requiring such in-depth analysis. In this circuit, we look to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991), and Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 102 S.Ct. 703, 70 L.Ed.2d 556 (1982), as benchmarks for making the threshold determination whether a defendant’s drug offense and sentence were grossly disproportionate. See United States v. Cathey, 259 F.3d 365, 368-69 & nn. 13-14 (5th Cir.2001).

Strahan’s fifteen-year sentence for conspiring to distribute 168 grams of methamphetamine is not grossly disproportionate to his crime, and thus it does not violate the Eighth Amendment. See Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1001-05, 111 S.Ct. 2680; Davis, 454 U.S. at 370, 374-75, 102 S.Ct. 703; Cathey, 259 F.3d at 367-69.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant, to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.'

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

John Paul Strahan appeals the mandatory minimum fifteen-year sentence he received pursuant to his gmlty-plea conviction of conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Strahan contends, as he did at sentencing, that his sentence, as applied to the facts of his case, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Strahan asserts that under the Ninth Circuit’s opinions in Ramirez v. Castro, 365 F.3d 755 (9th Cir.2004) and Rios v. Garcia, 390 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir.2004), the district court should have considered the following facts: (1) he was merely present in his house when the transaction occurred and he did not profit from the transaction; (2) the weapons involved in the transaction were kept outside of his home in a storage shed; and (3) his only past crime was a misdemeanor assault case, for which he received a probated sentence.

However, the Ninth Circuit’s opinions are persuasive authority at most. Strahan does not point to any language in Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003), Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003), or any other Supreme Court or Fifth Circuit opinion requiring such in-depth analysis. In this circuit, we look to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991), and Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 102 S.Ct. 703, 70 L.Ed.2d 556 (1982), as benchmarks for making the threshold determination whether a defendant’s drug offense and sentence were grossly disproportionate. See United States v. Cathey, 259 F.3d 365, 368-69 & nn. 13-14 (5th Cir.2001).

Strahan’s fifteen-year sentence for conspiring to distribute 168 grams of methamphetamine is not grossly disproportionate to his crime, and thus it does not violate the Eighth Amendment. See Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1001-05, 111 S.Ct. 2680; Davis, 454 U.S. at 370, 374-75, 102 S.Ct. 703; Cathey, 259 F.3d at 367-69.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant, to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 F. App'x 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-strahan-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack