United States v. Anthony Lewis

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Anthony Lewis

574 F. App'x 598

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJuly 24, 2014

Docket13-6087

StatusUnpublished

This text of 574 F. App'x 598 (United States v. Anthony Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Anthony Lewis, 574 F. App'x 598 (6th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MICHAEL H. WATSON, District Judge.

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In 2007, the district court sentenced Defendant to a term of 180 *599 months’ imprisonment, ten years of which represented the statutory minimum for the crack cocaine count. In 2018, Defendant moved pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub.L. No. 11-220, 124 Stat. 2872, relying on United States v. Blewett, 719 F.3d 482 (6th Cir.2013), rev’d en banc, 746 F.3d 647 (6th Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 1779, 188 L.Ed.2d 607 (2014).

The FSA raised the minimum quantities of crack cocaine required to trigger the mandatory minimum sentences set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). Defendant asserts that application of the FSA would reduce his sentence by about three years.

The district court denied Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence without prejudice after en banc review was granted in Blewett. On appeal, Defendant argues that the district court’s refusal to apply the FSA retroactively to the sentence for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine deprived him of due process and equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment and violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Defendant expressly acknowledges that this court’s en banc decision in Blewett bars the relief he seeks. The en banc majority in Blewett held that the FSA’s new mandatory mínimums for crack cocaine apply only to sentences imposed after the FSA’s effective date and further rejected the very constitutional arguments Defendant advances in his appeal. 746 F.3d at 650. Defendant continues to prosecute his appeal solely to preserve his arguments for review by the United States Supreme Court. We are bound by Blew-ett, and accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

MICHAEL H. WATSON, District Judge.

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In 2007, the district court sentenced Defendant to a term of 180 *599 months’ imprisonment, ten years of which represented the statutory minimum for the crack cocaine count. In 2018, Defendant moved pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub.L. No. 11-220, 124 Stat. 2872, relying on United States v. Blewett, 719 F.3d 482 (6th Cir.2013), rev’d en banc, 746 F.3d 647 (6th Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 1779, 188 L.Ed.2d 607 (2014).

The FSA raised the minimum quantities of crack cocaine required to trigger the mandatory minimum sentences set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). Defendant asserts that application of the FSA would reduce his sentence by about three years.

The district court denied Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence without prejudice after en banc review was granted in Blewett. On appeal, Defendant argues that the district court’s refusal to apply the FSA retroactively to the sentence for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine deprived him of due process and equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment and violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Defendant expressly acknowledges that this court’s en banc decision in Blewett bars the relief he seeks. The en banc majority in Blewett held that the FSA’s new mandatory mínimums for crack cocaine apply only to sentences imposed after the FSA’s effective date and further rejected the very constitutional arguments Defendant advances in his appeal. 746 F.3d at 650. Defendant continues to prosecute his appeal solely to preserve his arguments for review by the United States Supreme Court. We are bound by Blew-ett, and accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

574 F. App'x 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-anthony-lewis-ca6-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack