United States v. Rodney Woods
576 F. App'x 309
5th Cir.
2014
Check Treatment
Docket

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodney Lewis WOODS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-41098

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 23, 2014.

573 Fed. Appx. 309

Summary Calendar.

Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donald Lee Bailey, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodney Lewis Woods appeals his 200-month within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Because Woods committed the offense after two prior felony convictions for controlled substance offenses, he was considered a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. He now argues that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment‘s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because his sentence is grossly disproportionate to his offense.

Although we ordinarily review claims of constitutional error de novo, , we have applied a plain error standard of review to constitutional challenges not raised in the district court. See . Woods argued in the district court against the career offender designation and noted that “based on a proportionality argument, if ... he wasn‘t a career offender, he would be in a range of 27 to about 36 months.” Regardless whether this objection was sufficient to preserve the issue raised on appeal, Woods has failed to demonstrate any error, plain or otherwise.

The Eighth Amendment “preclude[s] a sentence that is greatly disproportionate to the offense, because such sentences are ‘cruel and unusual.‘” (citation omitted). In determining whether a sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate, we make a threshold comparison of the gravity of the offense against the severity of the sentence. See (citing ).

When measured against the benchmark in , Woods‘s sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the severity of his controlled substance offense. See , abrogated on other grounds by . Thus, no further comparison is required. See . Moreover, Woods‘s sen-tence was within the Guidelines, which are a “convincing objective indicator of proportionality.” .

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Gurgit SINGH, also known as Jurgit Singh, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-60665

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 23, 2014.

Summary Calendar.

William Franklin Kemp, Law Offices of William F. Kemp, Austin, TX, for Petitioner.

Lindsay Brooke Glauner, Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gurgit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA“) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ“) to deny Singh‘s request for asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ recited numerous inconsistencies upon which he based his credibility finding, and the BIA recounted many of those inconsistencies in its decision. Singh has not shown that the totality of the circumstances underlying the credibility finding, as explained by the IJ and BIA, compels a different conclusion. See .

The petition is DENIED.

Notes

*
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. 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.