United States v. Scott

Filed: February 13, 2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4320
(CR-02-101)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LAWRENCE ELMO SCOTT, a/k/a Mummy,
Defendant - Appellant.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed September 3, 2003, as
follows:
On page 2, first line of text -- “pled guilty to” is corrected
to read “was convicted of.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 was convicted of 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 constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment. We affirm.
The statutory maximum sentence applicable to Scott’s offense
was forty years (twice the maximum punishment of twenty years
authorized under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 2000 & Supp.
2003)). See 21 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
2