## Facts

- Federal agents used a confidential informant to conduct three controlled marijuana purchases from Weldon Angelos in May–June 2002, each involving roughly eight ounces.
- During two of the controlled buys, the informant observed Angelos in possession of a 10-mm Glock pistol.
- A consensual search of Angelos’s apartment produced marijuana, multiple firearms, significant cash, and other contraband; a later search of a house he leased yielded additional evidence of marijuana trafficking.
- A federal grand jury charged Angelos in a series of indictments with marijuana distribution offenses and multiple firearms offenses, including three counts of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
- After a jury trial, Angelos was convicted of multiple drug counts, three § 924(c) counts, additional firearms offenses (including stolen firearms and an obliterated serial number), and money-laundering counts.
- The district court imposed a total sentence of 660 months and one day, driven primarily by § 924(c) mandatory consecutive minimums: 5 years for the first conviction and 25 years for each “second or subsequent” conviction, even when charged in the same case.

## Issues

1. Whether a 55-year-and-one-day sentence largely produced by stacked § 924(c) mandatory consecutive terms is “grossly disproportionate” and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment.
2. Whether applying § 924(c)’s “second or subsequent conviction” enhancement to multiple counts charged in a single indictment is unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful.
3. Whether the district court had authority to impose less than the statutory mandatory consecutive minimum terms required by § 924(c).

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed Angelos’s convictions and sentence.
- The court held the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment under the narrow proportionality doctrine governing noncapital sentences.
- The court upheld the statutory requirement that § 924(c) terms run consecutively and that enhanced minimums apply to multiple § 924(c) convictions within the same prosecution.
- The court rejected arguments that the district court could reduce or avoid the mandatory consecutive minimums based on perceived harshness.

## Legal Principles

- For noncapital sentences, the Eighth Amendment proportionality principle is narrow; a defendant must show “gross disproportionality” before comparative analyses are required.
- Mandatory minimum sentencing schemes enacted by Congress, including consecutive penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), are generally enforced as written absent a constitutional violation.
- Under § 924(c), the sentencing court must impose consecutive terms, and enhanced minimums for “second or subsequent” convictions may apply even when the convictions arise in a single indictment.
- A district court lacks discretion to impose a sentence below statutory mandatory minimums absent an applicable statutory mechanism permitting such reduction.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Angelos’s 55-year-and-one-day mandatory sentence, concluding that stacked § 924(c) consecutive minimums were legally required and not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment’s limited proportionality review for noncapital punishments.


United States v. Angelos, 433 F.3d 738 (10th Cir. 2006)