United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Lee Harper, Defendant-Appellant., 530 F.2d 828 (9th Cir. 1976)

Federal Circuits, 9th Cir. (February 09, 1976)

Docket number: 75-2993

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/america-ronald-lee-harper-defendant-38430374
Id. vLex: VLEX-38430374

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Ira Solow, Defendant-Appellant. No. 77-5796 Summary Calendar. [Fn*], 574 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1978)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - United States of America, Appellee, v. James Wagner Mccormick, Appellant (Three Cases). United States of America, Appellee, v. Percy Perrine Carter, Appellant (Three Cases). United States of America, Appellee, v. Louis Martin Weinstein, Appellant (Two Cases)., 565 F.2d 286 (4th Cir. 1978)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ellen Lou Foundas, Defendant-Appellant., 610 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1980)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Glen Alexander, Defendant/Appellant., 673 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1982)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - United States of America, Appellee, v. Jaime Vila, Narcisco Guzman, and Luis Hernandez, Defendants-Appellants., 599 F.2d 21 (2nd Cir. 1979)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas S. Szycher, Defendant-Appellant., 585 F.2d 443 (10th Cir. 1978)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Irving Davis, M. D., Defendant-Appellant., 564 F.2d 840 (9th Cir. 1978)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James A. Whitley (83-5428), James P. Wagers (83-5438), Matthew Foley (83-5439), William Shelton A/K/a Douglas Harrison (83-5440), Joseph L. Hucks (83-5456), Defendants-Appellants., 734 F.2d 1129 (6th Cir. 1984)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - United States of America, Appellee, v. Odell Marshall, Appellant., 532 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1976)

See all citations to this document

Text:

Michael Pancer (argued), San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Bruce R. Castetter, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

OPINION

Before CHAMBERS and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and EAST,[fn*] Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction of petitioner Ronald Lee Harper for possession and dispensing of cocaine, rejecting his sole contention on appeal that the classification of cocaine as a Schedule II narcotic drug under 21 U.S.C. § 812(c) is arbitrary and irrational.

Numerous district courts have recently dealt with this argument. United States v. Amidzich, 396 F.Supp. 1140, 1147 (E. D.Wis. 1975); United States v. Hobbs, 392 F.Supp. 444, 446 (D.Mass. 1975); United States v. DiLaura, 394 F.Supp. 770, 773 (D.Mass. 1974); United States v. Brookins, 383 F.Supp. 1212, 1217 (D.N.J. 1974). In all cases, the courts expressed the opinion that Congress had acted upon a constitutionally "rational basis" according to the test of United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153-4, 58 S.Ct. 778, 784, 82 L.Ed. 1234, 1242 (1938), in so classifying cocaine for the purpose of imposing penalties. See also United States v. Smaldone, 484 F.2d 311, 319-20 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 1411, 39 L.Ed.2d 469 (1974) and United States v. Miller, 387 F.Supp. 1097, 1098 (D.Conn. 1975), where slightly different reasoning nonetheless led the courts to the same conclusion that Congress had not acted arbitrarily.

Petitioner's reliance upon the district court's decision in United States v. Castro, 401 F.Supp. 120 (N.D.Ill. 1975), is misplaced. The court found no fundamental right of defendant involved[fn1] and therefore reasoned that the "rational basis" test of Carolene, supra, must be applied. The court then cited the language of Brookins, supra, observing that continuing medical debate, potential for societal harm, and general uncertainty as to whether Congress classified cocaine on more of a penal or medical basis, were grounds that could constitute the required rational basis for sustaining the statute. Although sympathetic to the argument that cocaine was misclassified as a narcotic, the court concluded that the consideration of any unresolved questions was better left to Congress and the Attorney General. We agree and affirm the conviction.

[fn*] Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

[fn1] See Duffy v. Wells, 201 F.2d 503 (9th Cir. 1953).