Opinion ID: 3063078
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Text: Pineda argues his mandatory minimum sentences violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He concedes, however, that Supreme Court precedent forecloses his argument before this court and submits that he is preserving this argument for appeal. Here, Pineda’s mandatory minimum sentences did not violate the Eighth Amendment. As Pineda concedes, this court has rejected an Eighth Amendment challenge to mandatory minimum sentences. See United States v. Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239, 1243-44 (11th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Pineda’s argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Pineda’s convictions and sentences. AFFIRMED. 7