## Facts

- Weldon Angelos, a 24-year-old first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of marijuana distribution and related drug offenses.
- The jury also convicted Angelos of three counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for possessing a firearm “in furtherance of” a drug trafficking crime.
- Two § 924(c) counts arose from Angelos carrying a handgun during two separate $350 marijuana sales; a third count arose from additional handguns found at his home during execution of a search warrant.
- The firearms were not fired, brandished, or displayed during the drug transactions.
- The parties agreed the non-§ 924(c) offenses produced a Guidelines range of roughly 6–8 years, but the § 924(c) counts triggered mandatory consecutive terms that would add 55 years.

## Issues

1. Whether § 924(c)’s mandatory “stacking” of consecutive sentences violates equal protection (as applied to federal law through the Fifth Amendment) under rational-basis review.
2. Whether a mandatory 55-year consecutive term for three § 924(c) convictions, added to the drug sentence, is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment’s proportionality doctrine.
3. If § 924(c) is constitutional, whether the district court must impose the mandated consecutive terms despite viewing the outcome as unjust.

## Decision

- The court denied Angelos’s motion to declare § 924(c) unconstitutional.
- The court held that § 924(c)’s classifications and sentencing structure had a conceivable rational basis tied to legitimate governmental aims such as deterrence and incapacitation of armed drug traffickers.
- The court held that, under controlling noncapital proportionality precedent, the resulting sentence was not so grossly disproportionate as to violate the Eighth Amendment.
- The court imposed the mandatory terms: 5 years for the first § 924(c) count and 25 years for each of the next two counts, all consecutive to each other and to the drug sentence, producing a total term exceeding 61 years.
- The court formally recommended executive clemency and urged legislative reform of § 924(c)’s stacking scheme.

## Legal Principles

- Federal sentencing statutes that do not employ suspect classifications are reviewed under rational-basis equal protection principles; a statute is upheld if any conceivable legitimate purpose supports it.
- Under rational-basis review, harsh or anomalous sentencing outcomes do not render a statute unconstitutional if Congress could rationally aim to deter and punish dangerous conduct.
- In noncapital cases, the Eighth Amendment proportionality doctrine is highly deferential; a sentence will be invalidated only in rare instances of gross disproportionality under Supreme Court precedent.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), multiple convictions in a single prosecution can require mandatory minimum sentences of 5 years for the first count and 25 years for each additional count, all consecutive to one another and to the predicate offense sentence.
- Where a mandatory minimum statute applies, the district court lacks discretion to impose a lower sentence on policy grounds, though it may comment and recommend relief to the political branches.

## Conclusion

The district court concluded it was bound to impose § 924(c)’s stacked mandatory consecutive terms and rejected equal protection and Eighth Amendment challenges, while separately urging executive commutation and congressional revision in light of the sentence’s severity for a first-time marijuana offender whose firearms were not used or displayed.


United States v. Angelos, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Utah 2004)