UNITED STATES v. GASS (2021)

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 Commission's 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 Government's 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Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.