United States v. Albino
Decision Date | 15 December 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 05-10146.,05-10146. |
Citation | 432 F.3d 937 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene K. ALBINO, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Pamela J. Byrne, Assistant Federal Defender, Honolulu, HI, for the appellant.
Thomas Muehleck, Assistant United States Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for the appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii; David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-03-00417-DAE.
Before BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Eugene Albino appeals the ten-year sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to growing 2,349 marijuana plants. Albino argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii), which classifies 1000 or more marijuana plants, regardless of weight, as equal to 1000 or more kilograms of marijuana for purposes of the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence, violates the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. We affirm.
We have rejected Albino's Fifth Amendment argument in United States v. Motz, 936 F.2d 1021, 1025 (9th Cir.1991) ( ) and United States v. Belden, 957 F.2d 671, 676 (9th Cir.1992) ( ).
Albino's Eighth Amendment claim also fails because his sentence is not grossly disproportionate to his offense. Albino pled guilty to growing 2,349 marijuana plants and received a ten-year sentence, the minimum under the statute. In reviewing criminal sentences for Eighth Amendment proportionality, we "grant substantial deference to the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and limits of punishments for crimes." Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). In view of this deference "a reviewing court rarely will be required to engage in extended analysis to determine that a sentence is not constitutionally disproportionate." Id. at 290 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 3001. "Generally, as long as the sentence imposed on a defendant does not exceed statutory limits, this court will not overturn it on Eighth Amendment grounds...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Su
...a defendant does not exceed statutory limits, [a] court will not overturn it on Eighth Amendment grounds." United States v. Albino, 432 F.3d 937, 938 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Parker, 241 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2001)). Su's below-Guidelines sentence - which t......
-
U.S. v. Gomez, 06-30288.
...a defendant does not exceed statutory limits, this court will not overturn it on Eighth Amendment grounds.'" United States v. Albino, 432 F.3d 937, 938 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Parker, 241 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. Here, Defendant does not challenge the validity......
-
Laurel v. Muniz
...set by a valid statute may not be overturned on appeal as cruel and unusual.'") (citation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Albino, 432 F.3d 937, 938 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying rule to uphold statutory minimum 10-year sentence for federal conviction for growing 2,349 marijuana plants). F......
-
Mosby v. Baker
...of legislatures to determine the types and limits of punishments for crimes. Solem, 463 U.S. at 290; see also United States v. Albino, 432 F.3d 937, 938 (9th Cir. 2005). Nevada's "large" habitual criminal statute, NRS 207.010(1)(b), provides that an individual adjudicated a large habitual c......