United States v. Eddie Williams

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 24, 1998
Docket97-4121
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Eddie Williams (United States v. Eddie Williams) 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. Eddie Williams, (8th Cir. 1998).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 97-4121 ___________

United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Eddie Williams, Jr., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________

Submitted: April 23, 1998

Filed: April 24, 1998 ___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

After Eddie Williams, Jr. pleaded guilty to possessing “cocaine base, aka #crack cocaine,&” with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the district court1 sentenced him to 70 months imprisonment and four years supervised release. Mr. Williams now appeals, and we affirm.

1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Mr. Williams argues that the 100-to-1 ratio used in establishing sentencing ranges for crack versus powder cocaine offenses denies him due process and equal protection, and is inappropriate based on medical authority, the rule of lenity, and policy considerations. Mr. Williams&s challenge is foreclosed by our prior decisions upholding the constitutionality of the 100-to-1 ratio. See, e.g., United States v. Carter, 91 F.3d 1196, 1197-99 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); United States v. Jackson, 67 F.3d 1359, 1367 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1192 (1996); see also United States v. Jackson, 64 F.3d 1213, 1220 (8th Cir. 1995) (rejecting challenge based on rule of lenity), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1137 (1996). We are bound by those decisions. See United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir.) (one Eighth Circuit panel may not overrule another panel&s decision), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 84 (1997).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Eddie Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eddie-williams-ca8-1998.