Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Thaddeus Lorenzo PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-19
Citations: 361 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: No. 09-60317
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Thaddeus Lorenzo PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Thaddeus Lorenzo PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-60317
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 19, 2010.
Paul David Roberts, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gregory Scott Park, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Oxford, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Thaddeus Lorenzo Patterson appeals from his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride (powder cocaine). Because Patterson's offense involved 501.5 grams of powder cocaine, he was subject to the 60-month mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(ii). He was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.
On appeal, Patterson argues that imposition of the statutory minimum sentence violated his Eighth Amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment and his Fifth Amendment right to due process. As he has failed to show that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the severity of his crime, his Eighth Amendment claim fails. See United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 942 (5th Cir.1997). Moreover, despite Patterson's arguments to the contrary, the statutory minimum sentence was not based upon an arbitrary distinction that resulted in a violation of his due process rights. See United States v. Rojas-Martinez, 968 F.2d 415, 420 (5th Cir.1992).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cnt. R. 47.5.4.