Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joshua Nehemiah REYNA, also known as Joshua Nemiah Reyna, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-15
Citations: 292 F. App'x 378
Docket Number: No. 07-51003
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joshua Nehemiah REYNA, also known as Joshua Nemiah Reyna, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 292
Pages: 378–379

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joshua Nehemiah REYNA, also known as Joshua Nemiah Reyna, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-51003
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 15, 2008.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Michael Hurley, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Nehemiah Reyna appeals the mandatory consecutive 60-month and 300-month sentences imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense. Reyna argues that the sentences are cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment because they are grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses committed. Because Reyna failed to object on this ground in the district court, review is for plain error. See United States v. Howard, 220 F.3d 645, 647 (5th Cir.2000). In comparison to the life sentence imposed in Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980), on a non-violent criminal pursuant to a recidivist statute, and the 30-year sentence imposed in United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 943-44 (5th Cir.1997), on a non-habitual offender convicted of using or carrying a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense, the sentences imposed on Reyna are not grossly disproportionate to his offenses. See Gonzales, 121 F.3d at 943; McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir.1992).
Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.