United States v. Maureen Patricia Lawrence, 46 F.3d 1128, 4th Cir. (1995)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Maureen Patricia Lawrence, 46 F.3d 1128, 4th Cir. (1995)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs46 F.
3d 1128
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of
unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Maureen Patricia LAWRENCE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 94-5387.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 19, 1995.
Decided Feb. 10, 1995.
William Alden McDaniel, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM ALDEN
MCDANIEL, JR., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A.
Battaglia, United States Attorney, John F. Purcell, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior
Circuit Judge.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Maureen Patricia Lawrence pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 846 (West
Supp.1994). She was sentenced to a term of 135 months, and appeals her
sentence on the ground that the sentencing scheme prescribed by 21 U.S.C.A.
Sec. 841 (West 1981 & Supp.1994) for crack offenses, as applied to her,
violated the Eighth Amendment. We affirm.
Lawrence stipulated as part of her plea agreement that she was involved with
150 to 500 grams of crack. Taking into account Lawrence's leadership role and
her acceptance of responsibility, the final offense level was thirty-three. The
district court departed downward to put Lawrence in criminal history category I,
thus making her offense level 135-168 months. She received the lowest
possible sentence under the guidelines, a sentence which was nonetheless
higher than the mandatory minimum of 120 months.
3
At the sentencing hearing, Lawrence objected to the sentence, stating through
counsel that she believed it generally inappropriate to give higher sentences for
crack cocaine than for cocaine powder. Although she presented no argument on
the issue, the district court found that the penalties for crack were statutorily
authorized and constitutional. It noted that the issue had been preserved for
appeal.
On appeal, Lawrence argues that the penalties for crack offenses are arbitrary
and capricious as applied to her, and resulted in cruel and unusual punishment
in violation of the Eighth Amendment. She relies on United States v. Walls,
841 F.Supp. 24 (D.D.C.1994), in which the district court held that the crack
sentencing scheme was arbitrary and capricious and resulted in cruel and
unusual punishment as applied to two defendants with minor roles who were
drug addicts, but did not violate the Eighth Amendment as applied to other
defendants.
Lawrence's argument on appeal is different from the one she presented to the
district court, and we review it under a plain error standard. United States v.
Bornstein, 977 F.2d 112, 115 (4th Cir.1992). We have previously held that the
penalty structure for crack and cocaine offenses is not arbitrary and does not
violate the Eighth Amendment. See United States v. Thomas, 900 F.2d 37, 3940 (4th Cir.1990). Therefore, the district court did not plainly err in sentencing
her.
Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed. 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
