IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60064

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LONZO LEZELL GRIFFIN, also known as Zell, also known as Z, also known 

as Youngster, also known as Young,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:10-CR-160-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lonzo Lezell Griffin, pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written agreement, to 

conspiracy to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to commit money laundering. 

The district court imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 360 months of

imprisonment on the cocaine conspiracy conviction and a concurrent sentence 

of 240 months of imprisonment on the money laundering conspiracy conviction. 

* 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

November 3, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60064 Document: 00512823464 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2014
No. 13-60064

Proceeding pro se, Griffin appeals his sentences, arguing they are procedurally

and substantively unreasonable and that they violate the Eighth Amendment.

It appears Griffin simply copied significant portions of his brief from a 

brief filed in the Fourth Circuit. See Brief for Petitioner, United States v. 

Cobler, 748 F.3d 570 (4th Cir. 2014) (No. 13-4170), 2013 WL 3992762. 

Importantly, in copying Cobler’s brief, Griffin repeatedly failed to tailor the 

brief to the facts of his own case. In some instances, Griffin made affirmative 

misrepresentations of fact. For example, he asserted he was a first-time 

offender, but that assertion is belied by his criminal history which was 

documented in his presentence investigation report. Additionally, he 

suggested that his thirty-year sentence was essentially a life sentence because 

he has a life expectancy of five to ten years. But Griffin is thirty-three years 

old and the presentence investigation report stated that “[t]he defendant 

advised he is in good health.” In short, we are unpersuaded that Griffin’s 

sentence is equivalent to life, and it appears that his assertions to the contrary 

are due to Griffin’s copying of Cobler’s brief. 

The Government argues that Griffin’s claims are barred by the appellate 

waiver provision of his plea agreement. Griffin has not addressed the 

applicability of the waiver-of-appeal provision. 

To determine the validity of an appeal waiver, we conduct “a two-step 

inquiry.” United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). Specifically, 

we consider “(1) whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary and (2) 

whether the waiver applies to the circumstances at hand, based on the plain 

language of the agreement.” Id.

Griffin does not assert that his plea was uninformed or involuntary. In 

light of Griffin’s cut-and-paste approach to this case and the affirmative 

misrepresentations he made to this court, we exercise our discretion to treat 

2

 Case: 13-60064 Document: 00512823464 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2014
No. 13-60064

this issue as waived. See United States v. Martinez, 263 F.3d 436, 438 (5th Cir. 

2001) (exercising discretion to consider the validity of a plea waiver). 

Additionally, based on the plain language of the agreement, the waiver applies 

to the circumstances at hand because Griffin challenges his sentences on 

appeal. See Bond, 414 F.3d at 544. Griffin’s challenges to his sentences as

procedurally and substantively unreasonable are barred by the appeal waiver 

provision. Cf. id.

As to Griffin’s claim that his sentences violate the Eighth Amendment, 

under our precedent, it appears to be an open question whether an appeal 

waiver bars such a challenge. We need not decide whether the Eighth 

Amendment claim is barred by the appeal waiver because, as discussed below, 

the claim lacks merit. 

Because Griffin did not preserve his Eighth Amendment challenge, our 

review is for plain error. See United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105, 155 (5th 

Cir. 2012). To succeed on plain error review, the defendant must show (1) a 

forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious and (3) that affects his substantial 

rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). On such a showing, 

we may exercise our discretion “to remedy the error . . . if the error seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. 

(internal quotation marks, bracketing, and citation omitted).

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) (internal quotation 

marks and 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 

3

 Case: 13-60064 Document: 00512823464 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/03/2014
No. 13-60064

316). The scope of review for claims of disproportionality “is narrow, and 

successful Eighth Amendment challenges to prison-term lengths will be rare.” 

Thomas, 627 F.3d at 160 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Unless the threshold comparison leads to a determination of gross 

disproportionality, we will not conduct a deeper inquiry into sentences for 

similar crimes in the same and other jurisdictions. Id.

Turning to Griffin’s actual sentences, he asserts that “the District Court 

failed to properly calculate the applicable points,” but he has failed to 

specifically identify an error the district court made in its calculation of the 

Guidelines. Furthermore, Griffin’s sentences did not exceed the advisory 

Guideline ranges, and we have recognized that the Guidelines are a 

“convincing objective indicator of proportionality.” United States v. CardenasAlvarez, 987 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Therefore, Griffin has not shown plain error with respect to

his Eighth Amendment claim.

AFFIRMED.

4

 Case: 13-60064 Document: 00512823464 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/03/2014