United States v. Carpenter , 424 F. App'x 844 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                      [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT           FILED
    ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-14879            APR 21, 2011
    JOHN LEY
    Non-Argument Calendar          CLERK
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00228-VMC-AEP-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll                                Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JEFFREY CARPENTER,
    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll                            Defendant - Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (April 21, 2011)
    Before BARKETT, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jeffrey Carpenter appeals his 108-month sentence for conspiracy to
    manufacture and distribute 5 grams or more of methamphetamine on a premises in
    which minor children were present and resided, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846
    and 860a. The district court imposed a 60-month statutory mandatory minimum
    sentence for the drug offense, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), and a
    consecutive 48-month sentence for the § 860a penalty. Carpenter argues that the
    60-month mandatory minimum sentence violates his Fifth Amendment substantive
    due process rights and is therefore arbitrary in violation of the Eighth Amendment
    prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically, Carpenter argues that
    he has a fundamental right to receive a sentence below the statutory minimum and
    that a narrowly tailored sentencing scheme would allow, for instance,
    consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
    A constitutional challenge to a sentence is typically reviewed de novo.
    United States v. Lyons, 
    403 F.3d 1248
    , 1250 (11th Cir. 2005). The Fifth
    Amendment guarantee of due process of law includes a “substantive” component,
    which protects certain rights that are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
    Coventry First, LLC v. McCarty, 
    605 F.3d 865
    , 870 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation
    omitted). Any infringement on a fundamental right must be narrowly tailored to
    serve a compelling government interest. Reno v. Flores, 
    507 U.S. 292
    , 302, 
    113 S. Ct. 1439
    , 1447, 
    123 L. Ed. 2d 1
    (1993). If a fundamental right is not implicated,
    2
    substantive due process requires only that the challenged government action
    rationally advance a legitimate government purpose. 
    Id. at 306,
    113 S.Ct. at 1449.
    There is no fundamental right to receive a term of imprisonment below a
    mandatory minimum sentence. Chapman v. United States, 
    500 U.S. 453
    , 467, 
    111 S. Ct. 1919
    , 1928, 
    114 L. Ed. 2d 524
    (1991); United States v. Castaing-Sosa, 
    530 F.3d 1358
    , 1362 (11th Cir. 2008). Further, we have specifically held that the 60-
    month mandatory minimum sentence imposed pursuant to § 841(b)(1)(B)
    rationally advances the government’s legitimate purpose in protecting public
    health and welfare. United States v. Solomon, 
    848 F.2d 156
    , 157 (11th Cir. 1988);
    United States v. Holmes, 
    838 F.2d 1175
    , 1177-78 (11th Cir. 1988).
    In non-capital cases, the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and
    unusual punishment encompasses “only a narrow proportionality principle.”
    United States v. Brant, 
    62 F.3d 367
    , 368 (11th Cir. 1995). We have previously
    held that the § 841(b)(1)(B) mandatory minimum sentence is not disproportionate
    to the offense of drug trafficking. 
    Holmes, 838 F.2d at 1178-79
    .
    Carpenter’s 60-month statutory mandatory minimum sentence under
    § 841(b)(1)(B) does not violate his substantive due process rights because
    Congress could rationally find that the manufacture and distribution of
    methamphetamine “posed a particularly great risk to the welfare of society.”
    3
    
    Solomon, 848 F.2d at 157
    . The sentence is therefore not arbitrary, nor is it
    disproportionate to the offense of drug trafficking. 
    Holmes, 838 F.2d at 1178-79
    .
    Accordingly, upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
    affirm.
    AFFIRMED.
    4