Unpublished Disposition Notice: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ludmil Maslarski, Defendant-Appellant., 932 F.2d 970 (6th Cir. 1991)

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (May 10, 1991)

Docket number: 90-5601

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/disposition-disfavored-ludmil-maslarski-37366603
Id. vLex: VLEX-37366603

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

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo Klein, Defendant-Appellant., 860 F.2d 1489 (9th Cir. 1988)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Levy (89-5980) and Calvin Black (89-6099), Defendants-Appellants., 904 F.2d 1026 (6th Cir. 1990)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tam Henry Holmes, Defendant-Appellant. No. 87-8505. Non-Argument Calendar., 838 F.2d 1175 (11th Cir. 1988)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

Before KEITH and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a). The parties were asked to request oral argument, if desired, by February 27, 1991. Neither party responded by that date, therefore, oral argument is waived.

Ludmil Maslarski was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intention to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec . 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Maslarski to a one hundred twenty (120) month term of imprisonment. This appeal followed and the parties have briefed the issues.

Upon consideration, we find no reversible error in the sentence on review. Counsel for Maslarski contends that the mandatory sentencing provisions of 21 U.S.C. Sec . 841(b)(1)(A) deprived his client of his due process right to individualized sentencing. We have rejected this argument. United States v. Levy, 904 F.2d 1026, 1035 (6th Cir.1990). See also United States v. Klein, 860 F.2d 1489, 1501 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Holmes, 838 F.2d 1175, 1177 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1058 (1988).

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.