Opinion
No. 13-41098
07-23-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RODNEY LEWIS WOODS, Defendant-Appellant
Summary Calendar
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CR-106-8
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
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, United States v. Romero-Cruz, 201 F.3d 374, 377 (5th Cir. 2000), we have applied a plain error standard of review to constitutional challenges not raised in the district court. See United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105, 155 (5th Cir. 2012). 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.'" McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 315 (5th Cir. 1992) (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 United States v. Thomas, 627 F.3d 146, 160 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing McGruder, 954 F.2d at 316).
When measured against the benchmark in Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), Woods's sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the severity of his controlled substance offense. See United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 943 (5th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. O'Brien, 560 U.S. 218, 234 (2010). Thus, no further comparison is required. See McGruder, 954 F.2d at 316. Moreover, Woods's sentence was within the Guidelines, which are a "convincing objective indicator of proportionality." United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.