US v. Scott (4th Cir. 2003)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (September 03, 2003)

Docket number: 03-4320

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/us-v-scott-18201075
Id. vLex: VLEX-18201075

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

US Code - Title 21: Food and Drugs - 21 USC 860 - Sec. 860. Distribution or manufacturing in or near schools and colleges

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miles Davis Saunders, Defendant-Appellant., 973 F.2d 1354 (7th Cir. 1992)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Ming Hong, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Ming Hong, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Ming Hong, Defendant-Appellant., 242 F.3d 528 (4th Cir. 2001)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4320 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

LAWRENCE ELMO SCOTT, a/k/a Mummy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.

(CR-02-101)

Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 3, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry N. Grimes, TERRY N. GRIMES, ESQ., P.C., Roanoke, Virginia,

for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, R. Andrew

Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Marya J.A. Shahriary,

Third-Year Law Intern, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Lawrence Elmo Scott pled guilty to distributing cocaine base (crack) within 1000 feet of a school in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 860(a) (2000), and received a career offender sentence of 283 months imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2002). Scott contends that his sentence consti tutes cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm.

The statutory maximum sentence applicable to Scott§ 841(b)(1)(C) (West 2000 & Supp. 3)). See U.S.C. § 860(a). Scott argues that, because the instant offense involved a distribution of .1 grams of crack, his punishment is excessive. However, he concedes that harsh sentences for repeat drug offenders have been upheld against similar challenges. See United States v. Saunders , 973 F.2d 1354, 1365-66 (7th Cir. 1992). In this circuit, proportionality review is not available for sentences of less than life without parole. United States v. Ming Hong , 242 F.3d 528, 532 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 823 (2001).

We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED