Document Info

DocketNumber: 97-4121

Filed Date: 4/24/1998

Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015

  •                           United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 97-4121
    ___________
    United States of America,                 *
    *
    Appellee,                    *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                  * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Eddie Williams, Jr.,                      *
    *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 23, 1998
    Filed: April 24, 1998
    ___________
    Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit
    Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    After Eddie Williams, Jr. pleaded guilty to possessing “cocaine base, aka #crack
    cocaine,&” with intent to distribute, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), the district
    court1 sentenced him to 70 months imprisonment and four years supervised release.
    Mr. Williams now appeals, and we affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Mr. Williams argues that the 100-to-1 ratio used in establishing sentencing
    ranges for crack versus powder cocaine offenses denies him due process and equal
    protection, and is inappropriate based on medical authority, the rule of lenity, and
    policy considerations. Mr. Williams&s challenge is foreclosed by our prior decisions
    upholding the constitutionality of the 100-to-1 ratio. See, e.g., United States v. Carter,
    
    91 F.3d 1196
    , 1197-99 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); United States v. Jackson, 
    67 F.3d 1359
    , 1367 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 
    517 U.S. 1192
     (1996); see also United States
    v. Jackson, 
    64 F.3d 1213
    , 1220 (8th Cir. 1995) (rejecting challenge based on rule of
    lenity), cert. denied, 
    516 U.S. 1137
     (1996). We are bound by those decisions. See
    United States v. Prior, 
    107 F.3d 654
    , 660 (8th Cir.) (one Eighth Circuit panel may not
    overrule another panel&s decision), cert. denied, 
    118 S. Ct. 84
     (1997).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-