United States v. John McKinney, Sr.

Sixth Circuit

United States v. John McKinney, Sr.

427 F. App'x 517

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedAugust 31, 2011

Docket09-2212

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 427 F. App'x 517 (United States v. John McKinney, Sr.) 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. John McKinney, Sr., 427 F. App'x 517 (6th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Defendant John McKinney, Sr., pleaded guilty to one count of distributing five or more grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). His plea agreement preserved his right to appeal a penalty *518 enhancement that he received for a prior felony drug offense. He also contends that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (Aug. 3, 2010), should be applied retroactively to his sentence.

The panel has had the opportunity to consider the arguments advanced by the parties and to conduct our own independent review of the record on appeal. In this case, the district court entered an Order on April 29, 2009, which explains in detail why defendant’s prior conviction in Michigan state court for possession of dihydrocodeinone qualifies as a prior “felony drug offense” under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). We agree with the reasoning of the district court and affirm on that basis.

With respect to the second issue raised by defendant, a prior panel of this court has decided that the FSA does not apply retroactively to cases on direct appeal. United States v. Carradine, 621 F.3d 575 (6th Cir.2010). A panel of this court cannot overrule a published decision of another panel. Salmi v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir.1985). Defendant recognizes that Carradine is controlling authority but raises the issue to preserve it for possible en banc review, which he is entitled to pursue.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Defendant John McKinney, Sr., pleaded guilty to one count of distributing five or more grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). His plea agreement preserved his right to appeal a penalty *518 enhancement that he received for a prior felony drug offense. He also contends that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (Aug. 3, 2010), should be applied retroactively to his sentence.

The panel has had the opportunity to consider the arguments advanced by the parties and to conduct our own independent review of the record on appeal. In this case, the district court entered an Order on April 29, 2009, which explains in detail why defendant’s prior conviction in Michigan state court for possession of dihydrocodeinone qualifies as a prior “felony drug offense” under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). We agree with the reasoning of the district court and affirm on that basis.

With respect to the second issue raised by defendant, a prior panel of this court has decided that the FSA does not apply retroactively to cases on direct appeal. United States v. Carradine, 621 F.3d 575 (6th Cir.2010). A panel of this court cannot overrule a published decision of another panel. Salmi v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir.1985). Defendant recognizes that Carradine is controlling authority but raises the issue to preserve it for possible en banc review, which he is entitled to pursue.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 F. App'x 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-john-mckinney-sr-ca6-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack