United States v. Angelos
2004 WL 2591971, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23159, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal sentencing statute requiring severe, mandatory consecutive sentences for multiple firearm offenses, even if seemingly unjust and disproportionate to the crime, does not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause so long as a conceivable rational basis, such as deterrence, exists for the law. Furthermore, such a sentence is not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment if it is consistent with binding Supreme Court precedent concerning similar offenses.
Facts:
- Weldon Angelos was a 24-year-old music executive with two young children and no significant prior criminal history.
- On May 21, 2002, Angelos sold eight ounces of marijuana to a government informant, Ronnie Lazalde, for $350. The informant observed Angelos's handgun near the car's center console.
- On June 4, 2002, Angelos sold another eight ounces of marijuana to Lazalde for $350 and showed the informant a handgun concealed in an ankle holster.
- On June 18, 2002, Angelos conducted a third marijuana sale with Lazalde, though no firearm was observed during this transaction.
- On November 15, 2003, police arrested Angelos at his apartment pursuant to a warrant.
- A search of Angelos's apartment revealed approximately three pounds of marijuana, cash, and a handgun in a briefcase.
- Officers also discovered two additional handguns in a locked safe within the apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- The government offered Weldon Angelos a plea agreement for a 15-year prison sentence.
- Angelos rejected the offer and exercised his right to a jury trial.
- The government then obtained a superseding indictment that added several new charges, including additional § 924(c) counts, exposing Angelos to a mandatory minimum sentence of over 100 years.
- The case proceeded to trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
- A jury convicted Angelos on sixteen counts, including three counts under § 924(c) which triggered a 55-year mandatory consecutive sentence.
- At sentencing, Angelos moved the court to find 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) unconstitutional as applied to him.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the mandatory minimum sentencing scheme of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which requires stacking consecutive sentences for multiple firearm possession offenses connected to drug trafficking, violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause or the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment when applied to a first-time offender?
Opinions:
Majority - Cassell, District Judge
No. The mandatory minimum sentencing scheme of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), as applied to Weldon Angelos, does not violate the Fifth or Eighth Amendments, even though the resulting 55-year sentence is unjust, cruel, and irrational. For the equal protection challenge, the court applies rational basis review, which requires the defendant to negate every conceivable basis for the statute. While the statute creates irrational classifications and imposes a penalty far harsher than those for more violent crimes, it survives scrutiny because a plausible reason for Congress's action—deterrence of gun use in drug trafficking—can be conceived. For the Eighth Amendment challenge, the court applies the three-factor proportionality test from Harmelin v. Michigan and finds the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime, far exceeds penalties for more serious federal offenses, and is more severe than any state's penalty for similar conduct. Despite these findings, the court concludes it is bound by the Supreme Court's precedent in Hutto v. Davis, which upheld a lengthy sentence for a similar marijuana-related offense, and therefore must reject the cruel and unusual punishment claim.
Analysis:
This opinion serves as a stark illustration of the tension between judicial discretion and the power of legislative sentencing mandates. It demonstrates the extremely high bar of rational basis review, under which a court can find a law to be irrational and unjust yet still be compelled to uphold it as constitutional. The case highlights how mandatory minimums, particularly the 'stacking' provisions of § 924(c), can force sentences that deviate dramatically from the expert-calibrated Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The judge's decision is also a notable example of judicial protest, using the opinion to meticulously document the law's perceived flaws and formally call for reform from the executive and legislative branches.
