eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 1998-03

United States v. Bey ( 1998 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                                 F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 25 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,                          No. 97-3150
v.                                           (D.C. No. 94-CR-20075)
NEWTON O. BEY, a/k/a James Noel,                               (D. Kan.)
a/k/a Newt,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant, Mr. Newton Bey, pled guilty to two
counts of a six-count indictment charging narcotics law violations and possession of a
firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Defendant appeals his sentence on Count
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
V, the count of conviction charging him with distributing 35.7 grams of cocaine base in
violation of
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1). See R., Vol. I, Doc. 1 at 3; Doc. 128. The district
court determined that Defendant’s criminal history and offense level resulted in a
sentencing guidelines range of 135 to 168 months incarceration for Count V. See
    id.,
    Doc. 152 at 8-9; U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(4) & Table. Defendant
was sentenced to 135 months of incarceration on the drug distribution charge and to a
mandatory consecutive sentence of five years incarceration on the charge of possessing a
weapon in relation to the drug offense. See R., Vol. I, Doc. 1 at 11-12. On appeal,
Defendant claims that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(B)
punish crimes involving cocaine base more harshly than crimes involving powder
cocaine, even though the two substances are chemically indistinguishable. See
Appellant’s Br. at 5. Defendant maintains that because there is no valid basis for the
discrepancy in punishing cocaine offenses, the statute under which he was sentenced and
the sentencing guidelines are unconstitutionally vague and violate the Fifth Amendment’s
guarantees of due process and equal protection. See
    id. at 7-9
    . Defendant argues that his
sentence also violates the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment. See
    id. at 9
    .
Defendant failed to raise these claims in the district court, see Appellant’s Br. at 6;
therefore, we review the Defendant’s sentence only for plain error. See United States v.
Easter,
    981 F.2d 1549
    , 1557 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
    508 U.S. 953
     (1993). “To
-2-
constitute plain error, the deficiency must be obvious and substantial and affect the
fundamental fairness, reputation, or integrity of the trial. However, we apply the plain
error rule less rigidly when reviewing a potential constitutional error.”
    Id.
     (citation
omitted).
In his appeal, Defendant asks this court to ignore the precedent of this and other
circuits and announce that
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(B), and the corresponding sentencing
guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, are unconstitutional. See Appellant’s Br. at 8. We are
bound by circuit precedent, and therefore AFFIRM the sentence imposed by the district
court. See United States v. Williamson,
    53 F.3d 1500
    , 1530 (10th Cir.), cert. denied sub
nom. Dryden v. United States, ___ U.S. ___,
    116 S. Ct. 218
     (1995); United States v.
Thurmond,
    7 F.3d 947
    , 951-52 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied,
    510 U.S. 1199
     (1994);
accord United States v. Washington,
    127 F.3d 510
    , 516-18 (6th Cir. 1997); but see United
States v. Armstrong,
    517 U.S. 456
    , ___,
    116 S. Ct. 1480
    , 1492-94 (1996) (Stevens, J.,
dissenting). Defendant’s sentence is within the prescribed statutory limits; therefore, we
conclude that his sentence does not violate the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against
cruel and unusual punishment. See United States v. Youngpeter,
    986 F.2d 349
    , 355 (10th
Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-