United States v. Kemo Dowe
This text of 539 F. App'x 992 (United States v. Kemo Dowe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Kemo Dowe appeals his 240-month, mandatory minimum sentence, imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, marijuana, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphe-tamine (“MDMA”), and N-Benzylpipera-zine (“BZP”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(iii), (b)(1)(C); and 846. In this appeal and for the first time, Dowe argues that the sentence (which was enhanced due to a prior cocaine conviction) constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
For an error to be plain, it must be “contrary to explicit statutory provisions or to on-point precedent in this Court or the Supreme Court.” United States v. Hoffman, 710 F.3d 1228, 1281-32 (11th Cir.2013). The district court did not commit plain error. This Court’s precedent has established the validity of mandatory minimum sentences imposed based on pri- or convictions. And Dowe failed to show that his sentence was grossly disproportionate. For background, see United States v. Lopez, 649 F.3d 1222, 1248 (11th Cir.2011); United States v. Farley, 607 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir.2010); United States v. Brant, 62 F.3d 367 (11th Cir.1995).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
539 F. App'x 992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kemo-dowe-ca11-2013.