Opinion ID: 170618
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: Armour Jolley operated a large drug distribution ring in which firearms played a major part. The United States obtained two indictments charging Jolley with numerous drug and firearm violations. He pleaded guilty to a single firearm charge. A jury convicted him on numerous additional drug and firearm charges, including five violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). 1 At sentencing, the district court ordered that all sentences on convictions other than those implicating § 924(c)(1) would run concurrently. Those concurrent sentences amounted to 235 months’ imprisonment. As to the § 924(c)(1) convictions, the district court sentenced Jolley to a mandatory five-year term of imprisonment on the first conviction and mandatory twenty-five year sentences on each of the four additional convictions. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(I), (c)(1)(C). The district court ordered, as required by statute, that each of the § 924(c)(1) sentences would run consecutively to each other and consecutively to all other sentences imposed. Id. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). Thus, Jolley’s ultimate sentence is 1495 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Jolley raises the following single question: Does his 1495-month sentence violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? 2 Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 1 The jury actually convicted Jolley of six violations of § 924(c), but the government moved at the sentencing hearing to dismiss one of the convictions. 2 The United States asserts the question Jolley presents on appeal is (continued...) -2- and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), this court answers that question in the negative and, therefore, affirms the sentence imposed by the district court.