United States v. Curtis Holmes
This text of 68 F. App'x 770 (United States v. Curtis Holmes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Curtis Anthony Holmes appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in *771 violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1) and 846. At sentencing, the district court denied Mr. Holmes’s motion for a downward departure based on claimed overstatement of his criminal history category. The court thereafter sentenced Mr. Holmes to 292 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. For reversal, Mr. Holmes argues that the district court should have departed downward to impose a lesser sentence.
Given the district court’s explicit recognition of its authority to depart, its decision not to depart is unreviewable. See United States v. Orozco-Rodriguez, 220 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir.2000). To the extent that Mr. Holmes’s reference in his appeal brief to the Tenth Amendment was intended to challenge his sentence on Tenth Amendment grounds, we will not consider this constitutional argument, which is raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Dixon, 51 F.3d 1376, 1382-83 (8th Cir.1995).
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
. The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 F. App'x 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-curtis-holmes-ca8-2003.