* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. PAULINO RIOS-LEDESMA, aka Paulino Rios-Ledezma, Defendant - Appellant. No. 10-10455D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00737-FRZ-JJM3
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Frank R. Zapata, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 11, 2011 ** San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Defendant Paulino Rios-Ledesma appeals his sentence for numerous crimes committed while smuggling aliens illegally into the United States. Six of those crimes independently carry possible te rms of life imprisonment. Defendant 

# FILED
AUG 15 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 nevertheless argues that his 57-year sent ence is grossly disproportionate to his crimes and that it therefore violates the Eighth Amendment. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Barajas-Avalos , 377 F.3d 1040, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004), we affirm. Defendant, along with his four co-d efendants, smuggled 31 undocumented aliens across the Arizona border. When they reached Tucson, the smugglers took the aliens to a stash house. The smuggler s forcibly held the aliens there and threatened not to release them until they each paid more money. The smugglers also threatened to shoot the aliens with a MAK-90 assault rifle and a 9mm pistol if they did not pay. Defendant had the taskof keeping a record of each alien and what amount he or she owed. He also made phone calls to the aliens’ family members, demanding that they pay for the a liens’ release. Defendant kept a pistol in his waistband at all relevant times. A jury convicted Defendant of, among other things, three separate charges of brandishing a firearm while committing crimes of violence. Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the district court had to sentence Defendant to a minimum term of 7 years on the first of those counts, and to a minimum term of 25 years on each of the two1 Departing from the Sentencing Guidelines in Defendant’s favor, the district court sentenced Defendant to "time serv ed" on each of the additional seven crimes of which Defendant was convicted. 3 subsequent counts, all to be served c onsecutively. Defendant therefore received the minimum sentence mandated by Congress. 1 Because we previously have held that § 924(c) is a constitutional exercise of Congress’ broad authority to define a nd fix the punishment for crime, United States v. Wilkins , 911 F.2d 337, 338–39 (9th Cir. 1990), reaff’d by United States v. Hungerford , 465 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2006), we reject Defendant’s argument that the statute unconstitutionally deprives the district courts of sentencing discretion. Because Defendant’s sentence is not grossly disproportionate to his crimes, we also reject Defendant’s argum ent that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. United States v. Harris , 154 F.3d 1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 1998). Defendant’s Eighth Amendment challenge is thus "directly precluded by our precedent." Hungerford , 465 F.3d at 1118. AFFIRMED.