Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Santiago VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-31
Citations: 475 F. App'x 532
Docket Number: No. 11-10866
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Santiago VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 532–533

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Santiago VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10866
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 31, 2012.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Warren St. John, Esq., Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Santiago Valdez appeals from the 360-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. He argues that his sentence, which was enhanced pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on Valdez's status as a career offender, violates the Eighth Amendment because it was cruel and unusual punishment, disproportionate to his offense, and essentially amounted to a life sentence based on his age. Valdez has not shown that his sentence is grossly disproportion ate to the crime. He committed the in.stant offense after two prior felony convictions; was sentenced as a recidivist; was held responsible in the instant case for heroin, cocaine, and cocaine base equivalent to 8,517.57 kilograms of marijuana; and has failed to set forth any cogent argument regarding the disproportionality of his sentence. See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 284-85, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.