USA v. Samuel Exil, No. 14-14313 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-14313 Date Filed: 06/12/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-14313 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20232-RNS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SAMUEL EXIL, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (June 12, 2015) Before HULL, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-14313 Date Filed: 06/12/2015 Page: 2 of 3 Samuel Exil appeals his 120-month sentence, imposed within the advisory guideline range and in compliance with the statutory minimum, after pleading guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On appeal, Exil argues for the first time that his prison sentence of 120 months is unconstitutional because the statute setting forth the minimum sentence, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), violates his rights under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Exil also avers that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment because the district court did not engage in a proportionality analysis using the factors outlined in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S. Ct. 2680 (1991). Upon review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the parties’ briefs, we find that Exil’s 120-month sentence is constitutional, and we affirm the district court. We have squarely held that the statutory minimum sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) are not unconstitutional. United States v. Osburn, 955 F.2d 1500, 1505 (11th Cir. 1992). We have also held that minimum sentences under § 841(b) do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See United States v. Holmes, 838 F.2d 1175, 1178–79 (11th Cir. 1988); see also United States v. McGarity, 669 F.3d 1218, 1256 & n.57 (11th Cir. 2012). Exil’s conclusory argument that the district court “must” employ an individualized test for his case does not explain what 2 Case: 14-14313 Date Filed: 06/12/2015 Page: 3 of 3 makes his sentence unique among the myriad other sentences imposed in this Circuit under statutory minima, such that a proportionality analysis would have resulted in a finding of unconstitutionality for him and him alone. Without making such a showing, and without showing thereby that his rights were substantially affected, Exil cannot show that the district court committed plain error. See United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 2010) (finding that a constitutional challenge to a statute raised for the first time on appeal is subject to plain error review and setting forth the requirements thereof). AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
