United States v. Dukes

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6676
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SOLOMON DUKES, JR., a/k/a Junior,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (2:94-cr-00589-DCN-2)
Submitted: March 18, 2011 Decided: April 1, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William C. Wood, Jr., NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Peter T. Phillips, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Solomon Dukes, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
granting, in part, his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for
a sentence reduction based upon Amendments 706, 711 and 715 to
the Guidelines. In his motion, Dukes asked that the district
court reduce his life sentence to 360 months in prison based on
the aforementioned Amendments. Dukes alternatively argued,
however, that because the jury made no findings regarding the
amount of drugs for which he was held responsible, in accordance
with 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010), and
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the maximum
constitutional sentence he could receive for his drug
convictions was twenty years in prison. The district court
granted Dukes’ motion, in part, and reduced Dukes’ life sentence
to 360 months in prison.
We have reviewed the record and have considered Dukes’
arguments that his sentence should have been reduced below his
amended Guidelines range. We nonetheless affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See United States v. Dukes, No.
2:94-cr-00589-DCN-2 (D.S.C. Apr. 27, 2010). We reject Dukes’
argument that U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 (2010)
and § 3582(c)(2) violate the separation of powers doctrine. See
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 412 (1989) (holding
that the Sentencing Reform Act and the Sentencing Guidelines do
2
not violate the separation of powers doctrine, in part because
“our system of checked and balanced authority [does not]
prohibit Congress from calling upon the accumulated wisdom and
experience of the Judicial Branch in creating policy on a matter
uniquely within the ken of judges”).
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
3