United States v. Garth, No. 18-1715 (8th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing less than 50 grams of methamphetamine. The court held that defendant's 200 month sentence did not come close to violating the gross disproportionality Eighth Amendment standard. In this case, his sentence was within the advisory guidelines range and well within the statutory range of punishment for his offense. Furthermore, an extensive criminal history such as defendant's was a factor justifying the imposition of lengthy sentences. Accordingly, the district court did not commit plain error in sentencing defendant. The court denied as moot the government's motion to dismiss the appeal.

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's within-guidelines sentence was not grossly disproportionate to his crime and did not violate the Eighth Amendment; the seriousness of the offense and defendant's extensive criminal history supported the sentence imposed.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1715 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Frank James Garth, also known as Nitti lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: April 19, 2019 Filed: July 11, 2019 [Published] ____________ Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Defendant Frank Garth pleaded guilty to distributing less than 50 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). At sentencing, the district court1 determined, without objection, that Garth was a career offender with 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of VI, resulting in an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 188 to 235 months and a statutory range of 5 to 40 years imprisonment. The district court sentenced Garth to 200 months in prison, based primarily on Garth’s “long history of dealing drugs.” On appeal, Garth argues that this “draconian” sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of his crime. Reviewing this contention for plain error, we affirm. “The Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, contains a ‘narrow proportionality principle’ that ‘applies to noncapital sentences.’” Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 20 (2003) (plurality opinion), quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 996-97 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring). “An Eighth Amendment violation may be found only in the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality.” United States v. James, 564 F.3d 960, 964 (8th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). “[S]uccessful challenges to the proportionality of particular [noncapital] sentences are exceedingly rare.” United States v. Paton, 535 F.3d 829, 837 (8th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original; quotation omitted); see United States v. Wiest, 596 F.3d 906, 911 (8th Cir. 2010). Garth’s sentence does not come close to violating this gross disproportionality Eighth Amendment standard. His 200-month sentence is within the advisory guidelines range and well within the statutory range of punishment for his offense. It is significantly shorter than the 262-month sentence in James, the 40-year sentence in Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982), and the life without parole sentence in Harmelin. Garth committed a serious offense, helping distribute larger quantities of methamphetamine (47.4831 grams actual) than the marijuana equivalent quantities of marijuana, cocaine, and cocaine base possessed by the defendants in James, Hutto, and Harmelin. Finally, we have repeatedly held that an extensive criminal history like Garth’s is a factor “justifying the imposition of lengthy sentences.” James, 564 F.3d -2- at 964, and cases cited. “Recidivism has long been recognized as a legitimate basis for increased punishment.” Ewing, 538 U.S. at 25. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not commit plain Eighth Amendment error in sentencing Garth to 200 months imprisonment. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. We deny as moot the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. ______________________________ -3-

Primary Holding

Defendant's 200 month sentence did not come close to violating the gross disproportionality Eighth Amendment standard, and an extensive criminal history such as defendant's was a factor justifying the imposition of lengthy sentences.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.