UNITED STATES v. GASS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-04-12No. No. 18-10523

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that Gass's challenge to the methamphetamine Sentencing Guideline was foreclosed by prior circuit precedent.

Landon Gass appealed his prison sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He challenged the sentence as substantively unreasonable, arguing that the methamphetamine Sentencing Guideline was developed through congressional directives rather than through the Sentencing Commission's systematic review of empirical data, national experience, and expert analysis. According to Gass, this legislative origin meant the Guideline lacked a proper empirical foundation and produced sentences that were more severe than necessary.

The appellate court rejected Gass's argument, finding that his contention had already been foreclosed by established precedent in the circuit. The court granted the Government's motion for summary affirmance and declined to extend the Government's time to file a full responsive brief, since the legal question Gass raised was not available for reconsideration.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the methamphetamine Sentencing Guideline's origin in congressional mandate rather than Sentencing Commission empirical analysis renders it substantively unreasonable
Whether a Guideline lacking empirical foundation produces sentences greater than necessary

Procedural posture

Gass appealed his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a drug conspiracy charge.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Landon Gass appeals the prison sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Gass argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the methamphetamine Sentencing Guideline has evolved through congressional mandates rather than through the Sentencing Commissions examination of empirical data, national experience, and expert opinions. As a result, he contends that the Guideline lacks an empirical basis, it results in guidelines ranges that are greater than necessary to determine the appropriate sentence, and it produces overly severe sentences.

The Government moves for summary affirmance, asserting that the issue is foreclosed. Alternatively, the Government moves for an extension of time to file an appellate brief.

As Gass concedes, his issue is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Governments motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the alternative motion for an extension of time to file an appellate brief is DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.