USA v. Richard Jasso, No. 17-10337 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-10337 Document: 00514216640 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-10337 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 30, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RICHARD JASSO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:16:-CR-12-10 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Richard Jasso appeals the mandatory life sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of distribution and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (meth). He argues that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because the sentence is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense of 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 17-10337 Document: 00514216640 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 No. 17-10337 conviction. As Jasso raised this constitutional issue below, review is de novo. United States v. Wallace, 389 F.3d 483, 485 (5th Cir. 2004). When evaluating an Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge, we make a threshold comparison between the gravity of the charged offense and the severity of the sentence. McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1992). We look to Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 272 (1980), as a benchmark. See United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 943 (5th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (2010). In light of Jasso’s extensive criminal history, which includes convictions for felony drug offenses and violent crimes such as aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, he cannot demonstrate gross disproportionality against the benchmark in Rummel, 445 U.S. at 284-85. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 961, 994-96 (1991); United States v. Cooks, 52 F.3d 101, 105 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Jasso’s Eighth Amendment challenge does not warrant relief. See McGruder, 954 F.2d at 315-16. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
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.
