Russell Yates, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 753 F.2d 70 (8th Cir. 1985)

Federal Circuits, 8th Cir. (January 16, 1985)

Docket number: 84-2220


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/russell-yates-united-states-america-37064143
Id. vLex: VLEX-37064143

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

Document language

Search in this document

Document options

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - United States of America, Appellee, v. Robert Kenneth Rich, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Larry J. Weber, Appellant., 518 F.2d 980 (8th Cir. 1975)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter L. Jones, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Baines, Defendant-Appellant., 540 F.2d 465 (10th Cir. 1976)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - United States of America, Appellee, v. Russell James Yates, Appellant., 734 F.2d 368 (8th Cir. 1984)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - Erickson Transport Corporation, Petitioner, v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Respondents., 741 F.2d 1096 (8th Cir. 1984)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - United States of America, Appellee, v. Sherman R. Meirovitz, Appellant., 747 F.2d 488 (8th Cir. 1984)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - United States of America, Appellee, v. Ernest Sims, Appellant., 529 F.2d 10 (8th Cir. 1976)

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - United States of America, Appellee, v. Dana Wright, Appellant., 22 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 1994)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Unpublished Disposition Notice: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.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. James E. Williams, Defendant-Appellant., 831 F.2d 298 (6th Cir. 1987)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - Charles and Marion Hefti, Appellants, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee., 899 F.2d 709 (8th Cir. 1990)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - Unpublished Disposition Notice: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(C) States that Unpublished Orders, Judgments, and Explanatory Memoranda May Not Be Cited as Precedents, But Counsel May Refer To Unpublished Dispositions When the Binding or Preclusive Effect of the Disposition, Rather Than Its Quality as Precedent, is Relevant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Michael R. Jack, Appellant., 890 F.2d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 1989) Judgments, and Explanatory Memoranda May Not Be Cited as Precedents, But Counsel May Refer To Unpublished Dispositions When the Binding or Preclusive Effect of the Disposition, Rather Than Its Quality as Precedent, is Relevant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Michael R. Jack, Appellant.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred D. Arellanes, Defendant-Appellant., 767 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1985)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Notice: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 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 Fourth Circuit. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ronald Burnell Bassett, A/K/a Ronnie Bump, A/K/a the Kid, A/K/a Zachary Jackson, A/K/a Ronald Jackson, A/K/a Beamon Jackson, A/K/a Ronald Jones, A/K/a R.F. Jones, A/K/a Beamon West, A/K/a Harry Vandyke, A/K/a the Bird, Defendant-Appellant., 914 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1990)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Barbara Walberg, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee., 763 F.2d 143 (2nd Cir. 1985)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - David Lee Rothgeb, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 789 F.2d 647 (8th Cir. 1986)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Bridges, Defendant-Appellant., 760 F.2d 151 (7th Cir. 1985)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - Daniel Holloway, Appellant, v. Thomas Conger, Daniel Lindblom; Thomas Jones; Dorothy Noonan; and Merton Clarkson, as Members of the South Dakota State Brand Board and Individually; the South Dakota State Brand Board. South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Inc., Appellee. Daniel Holloway, Appellant, v. Thomas Conger; Daniel Lindblom, Thomas Jones, Dorothy Noonan, and Merton Clarkson, as Members of the South Dakota State Brand Board and Individually, the South Dakota State Brand Board, Appellees. South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Inc., 896 F.2d 1131 (8th Cir. 1990)

Text:

Robert Herman, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

No brief was filed for the appellee.

Before BRIGHT, ROSS and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Russell James Yates appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm.

Yates was found guilty of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, for which he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he was sentenced to two years imprisonment. See 734 F.2d 368 (8th Cir.1984). Under the authority of 21 U.S.C. Sec . 841(b)(1)(A), a special parole term of ten years was also imposed.

Yates contends that the special parole provision of 21 U.S.C. Sec . 841(b)(1)(A) is unconstitutional because the statute fails to delineate the maximum limit of the special parole term. Yates relies on United States v. Tebha, 578 F.Supp. 1398 (N.D.Cal.1984), for the proposition that the special parole provision of 21 U.S.C. Sec . 841(b)(1)(A) is violative of both his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and the constitutional separation of powers doctrine. Our court has taken a contrary view on the due process issue in United States v. Meirovitz, 747 F.2d 488, 489 (8th Cir.1984), and United States v. Sims, 529 F.2d 10, 12 (8th Cir.1976). See also United States v. Rich, 518 F.2d 980, 986-87 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 907 , 96 S.Ct. 3193, 49 L.Ed.2d 1200 (1976). We find these cases controlling. "One panel of this court is not at liberty to overrule another panel; only the court sitting en banc has that authority." Erickson Transport Corp. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 741 F.2d 1096, 1098 (8th Cir.1984) (Ross, J., concurring). We also reject Yates' separation of powers argument. See United States v. Jones, 540 F.2d 465, 468 (10th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1101 , 97 S.Ct. 1125, 51 L.Ed.2d 551 (1977); Ugland v. United States, 596 F.Supp. 156, 158-59 (D.N.J.1984); United States v. Lockley, 590 F.Supp. 1215, 1217 (N.D.Ga.1984). Accordingly, we affirm.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access






© Copyright 2009, vLex. All Rights Reserved. - Terms of Use - About us - Contact us - Tags - Sources - Topics

Login | Help Center | language:

  Home   / United States   /

Case Law