United States v. Dwaun Brown

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Dwaun Brown

221 F. App'x 496

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 2007

Docket06-1540

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 F. App'x 496 (United States v. Dwaun Brown) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. Dwaun Brown, 221 F. App'x 496 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dwaun Brown (Brown) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Brown objected to his classification as a career offender, arguing in reliance on Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 27-28, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) (Thomas, J. concurring), his prior convictions should not be used to enhance his sentence, despite Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (sentence-enhancing prior conviction need not be charged in indictment; due process does not require treating recidivism as element of offense). The district court 1 overruled the objection, and sentenced Brown to 188 months’ imprisonment. Brown appeals, arguing his sentence violates the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.

These arguments are unavailing. See United States v. Johnson, 408 F.3d 535, 540 (8th Cir.2005) (“The Supreme Court has never overruled its decision in Almendarez-Torres, and Shepard did not alter the rule that a court may consider prior criminal history as a sentencing factor.”); United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 679 (8th Cir.2003) (“The Eighth Amendment forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime.” (internal quotations omitted)). Brown’s sentence is not unreasonable. Consequently, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Dwaun Brown (Brown) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Brown objected to his classification as a career offender, arguing in reliance on Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 27-28, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) (Thomas, J. concurring), his prior convictions should not be used to enhance his sentence, despite Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (sentence-enhancing prior conviction need not be charged in indictment; due process does not require treating recidivism as element of offense). The district court 1 overruled the objection, and sentenced Brown to 188 months’ imprisonment. Brown appeals, arguing his sentence violates the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.

These arguments are unavailing. See United States v. Johnson, 408 F.3d 535, 540 (8th Cir.2005) (“The Supreme Court has never overruled its decision in Almendarez-Torres, and Shepard did not alter the rule that a court may consider prior criminal history as a sentencing factor.”); United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 679 (8th Cir.2003) (“The Eighth Amendment forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime.” (internal quotations omitted)). Brown’s sentence is not unreasonable. Consequently, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 F. App'x 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dwaun-brown-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack