Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dondell PEA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-17
Citations: 709 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 17-30163 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dondell PEA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dondell PEA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-30163 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 17, 2018
Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
John Broocks Greer, III, Broocks Greer, L.L.C., Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dondell Pea appeals the 240-month mandatory minimum sentence imposed fol lowing his guilty plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. He argues that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because it is grossly disproportionate to his offense and because the mandatory minimum was enhanced based on a purportedly insignificant prior conviction for a felony drug offense.
Reviewing this preserved issue de novo, we find no constitutional error. United States v. Mills, 843 F.3d 210, 217 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1601, 197 L.Ed.2d 726 (2017). Pea's 240-month sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the severity of his controlled substance offense. See Mills, 843 F.3d at 217; United States v. Helm, 502 F.3d 366, 368 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the 240-month sentence was not unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, regardless of the fact that it was the mandatory minimum sentence. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 995, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.