United States v. Joseph Eugene Haff

37 F. App'x 848
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 20, 2002
Docket01-3557
StatusUnpublished

This text of 37 F. App'x 848 (United States v. Joseph Eugene Haff) 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. Joseph Eugene Haff, 37 F. App'x 848 (8th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Eugene Haff pleaded guilty to possession of more than 50 grams of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Haff raises three issues in his appeal from the sentence imposed by the district court. *

First, Haff contends the sentencing scheme in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) is unconstitutional. We disagree. Haffs argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Woods, 270 F.3d 728, 729-30 (8th Cir. 2001), cert. denied — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1342, 152 L.Ed.2d 246 (2002). Second, Haff claims the indictment was flawed because it did not plead the earlier felony convictions which the district court used to enhance Haffs sentence. Again, we disagree. We do not require that earlier felony convictions be pleaded and proved beyond a reasonable doubt for those convictions to be considered at sentencing. United States v. Abernathy, 277 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir.2002), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Apr. 19, 2002) (No. 01-9788). Finally, Haff contends the sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the indictment did not allege the quantity and purity of the methamphetamine, yet the district court considered these factors during sentencing. We find, however, that the indictment alleged Haff “possessed with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine” and Haff stipulated to this level of quantity and purity when he entered his guilty plea. Further, although Haffs earlier convictions increase the statutory maximum sentence, “the use of drug quantity at sentencing will not conflict with Apprendi so long as it results in a sentence within the § 841(b)(1)(C) maximum.” United States v. Sheppard, 219 F.3d 766, 768 (8th Cir.2000). Haffs 156 month (13 year) sentence is well within the statutory 30 year maximum.

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district court.

*

The Honorable Rodney S. Webb, Chief United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota.

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

Related

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2000)
United States v. Bobby Dion Woods
270 F.3d 728 (Eighth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Gary Abernathy
277 F.3d 1048 (Eighth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 F. App'x 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joseph-eugene-haff-ca8-2002.