eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 1998-04

United States v. Adams ( 1998 )


Menu:
 
  •                  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-60706
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RANDALL ADAMS, also known as Wild Man,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:97-CR-15-ALL-WS
April 23, 1998
Before GARWOOD, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:
Randall Adams appeals his jury convictions for distributing
cocaine and “crack” cocaine base.    Our review of the record and the
arguments and authorities convince us that no reversible error was
committed.
The argument to the weight of the evidence is meritless.
United States v. Resio-Trejo,
    45 F.3d 907
    , 910-11 (5th Cir. 1995).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
The district court’s finding that the actions depicted on the
videotape were not coerced is not clearly erroneous. United States
v. Gonzales,
    79 F.3d 413
    , 419 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
    117 S. Ct. 183 
    (1996); United States v. Authement,
    607 F.2d 1129
    , 1131 (5th
Cir. 1979). The prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s remarks, if
any, was not of great magnitude in the context of the entire trial.
United States v. Wallace,
    32 F.3d 921
    , 926 (5th Cir. 1994).                     The
remarks   did    not   constitute   a       constructive    amendment     of    the
indictment.      The evidence established that the substance was
“crack” cocaine base. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), (n.D); United States v.
Metcalf,
    898 F.2d 43
    , 46 (5th Cir. 1990).             We have determined that
the sentencing disparity between cocaine and “crack” cocaine base
is not unconstitutional.      See, e.g., United States v. Buchanan,
    70 F.3d 818
    , 828 n.9 (5th Cir. 1995) (equal protection challenge),
cert. denied,
    517 U.S. 1114
    , 1126 (1996); United States v. Cherry,
    50 F.3d 338
    , 342-44 (5th Cir. 1995) (equal protection challenge);
United States v. Fisher,
    22 F.3d 574
    , 579-80 (5th Cir. 1994) (due
process, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment challenges).                    Only
the court sitting en banc can reverse this precedent.                      United
States v. Mathena,
    23 F.3d 87
    , 91 (5th Cir. 1994).
A claim for time served prior to the date of a federal
sentence must ordinarily proceed via a petition for habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.      United States v. Mares,
    868 F.2d 151
    , 151
(5th Cir. 1989).       However, for reasons of judicial economy, the
court may address       the question on the merits.
    Id. Adams’ unsupported 
        allegation   that   his      arrest   was   part   of    “one   big
2
investigation” is unconvincing.       Adams is not entitled to credit
for time served in state custody between state arrest on an
unrelated charge and his release to federal authorities.          United
States v. Garcia-Gutierrez,
    835 F.2d 585
    , 586 (5th Cir. 1988).
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3