United States v. Laffoon

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 25, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-10105
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HENRY GENE LAFFOON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-128-ALL-A
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Henry Gene Laffoon appeals the sentences imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for one count of aiding and abetting
bank robbery and two counts of possession of a firearm during and
in relation to a crime of violence. The district court sentenced
Laffoon to 71 months of imprisonment on the bank-robbery
conviction and to the statutory minimum sentence of 384 months
(32 years) of imprisonment on the firearms convictions. See
18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 2113(a).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-10105
-2-
Laffoon argues that the mandatory minimum sentences imposed
on his firearms convictions violate the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because they
fail to take into account his mental retardation. Citing Atkins
v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), which held that the Eighth
Amendment protects against the execution of mentally retarded
defendants, he argues that the Supreme Court has recognized that
persons with reduced mental capabilities do not act with the same
level of moral culpability as other offenders. He argues that
the mandatory minimums set forth in § 924(c) are unconstitutional
because they fail to account for the lesser culpability of the
mentally retarded. He makes no other challenge to his sentence.
We review the constitutionality of a federal statute de novo.
United States v. Rasco, 123 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir. 1997).
With the exception of a capital sentence, the imposition of
a mandatory sentence without consideration of mitigating factors
does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel
and unusual punishment. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994-
95 (1991). As the Supreme Court has continually recognized a
distinction between capital and noncapital sentences, see
Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 995, Laffoon’s reliance on Atkins to extend
its rationale to noncapital cases is unavailing. The judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --