United States v. Doyle Lyons

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Doyle Lyons

363 F. App'x 485

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 2010

Docket09-30172

StatusUnpublished

This text of 363 F. App'x 485 (United States v. Doyle Lyons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Doyle Lyons, 363 F. App'x 485 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Doyle Justin Lyons appeals from the 360-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2241(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lyons contends that the mandatory minimum sentence required by 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) unconstitutionally violates his right to equal protection. This contention fails because § 2241(c) does not discriminate against Native Americans, either on its face or as applied. See City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985); see also Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 241, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). Any disproportionate impact § 2241 has on Native Americans simply reflects the different treatment of criminals under the Major Crimes Act who commit crimes in a federal enclave. See United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1030-31 (9th Cir.2001); see also United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 645, 648-49, 97 S.Ct. 1395, 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977) (holding that federal legislation, although relating to Indian tribes, is not based upon impermissible racial classifications; and that it is of no consequence that the federal scheme differs from a state criminal code.)

Lyons also contends that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Lyons’ sentence is not so disproportionate as to be unconstitutional, and the sentence does not become “cruel and unusual” simply because it is mandatory. See Hannelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994-95, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991); see also Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 374, 102 S.Ct. 703, 70 L.Ed.2d 556 (1982) (per curiam) (concluding that federal courts should be reluctant to review legislatively mandated terms of imprisonment.)

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *487 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Doyle Justin Lyons appeals from the 360-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2241(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lyons contends that the mandatory minimum sentence required by 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) unconstitutionally violates his right to equal protection. This contention fails because § 2241(c) does not discriminate against Native Americans, either on its face or as applied. See City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985); see also Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 241, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). Any disproportionate impact § 2241 has on Native Americans simply reflects the different treatment of criminals under the Major Crimes Act who commit crimes in a federal enclave. See United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1030-31 (9th Cir.2001); see also United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 645, 648-49, 97 S.Ct. 1395, 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977) (holding that federal legislation, although relating to Indian tribes, is not based upon impermissible racial classifications; and that it is of no consequence that the federal scheme differs from a state criminal code.)

Lyons also contends that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Lyons’ sentence is not so disproportionate as to be unconstitutional, and the sentence does not become “cruel and unusual” simply because it is mandatory. See Hannelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994-95, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991); see also Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 374, 102 S.Ct. 703, 70 L.Ed.2d 556 (1982) (per curiam) (concluding that federal courts should be reluctant to review legislatively mandated terms of imprisonment.)

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *487 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 F. App'x 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-doyle-lyons-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack