Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10445/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10445-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Anna Rochelle Woods
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10445

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANNA ROCHELLE WOODS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-30-22

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anna Rochelle Woods pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of a mixture and substance 

containing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 846. She 

was sentenced to the statutory minimum of five years of imprisonment, and 

she timely appealed.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10445 Document: 00512916720 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2015
No. 14-10445

In her sole issue on appeal, Woods argues that mandatory minimum 

sentences violate an individual’s right to due process of law because they take 

away a sentencing judge’s discretion to sentence each convicted defendant as 

an individual. She contends that mandatory minimum sentences place the 

power to try a defendant in the hands of Congress and the power to sentence a 

defendant in the hands of the prosecutor.

The United States Supreme Court and this court have rejected the 

argument that mandatory minimum sentences violate the Fifth Amendment.

See Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 467 (1991) (“Congress has the 

power to define criminal punishments without giving the courts any 

sentencing discretion.”); United States v. Rojas-Martinez, 968 F.2d 415, 420 

(5th Cir. 1992) (“Imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for offenses 

involving large quantities of illegal drugs bears a rational relationship to the 

legitimate purpose of enforcing federal drug laws and is not arbitrary.”). 

Accordingly, the application of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence in 

§ 841(b)(1)(B)(i) does not violate Woods’s Fifth Amendment right to substantive 

due process.

Although we conclude that the judgment should be affirmed without 

further briefing, summary affirmance is not appropriate. See United States v. 

Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, 

we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny the Government’s motion 

for summary affirmance and its alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

2

Case: 14-10445 Document: 00512916720 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2015