United States v. Lavan Cortez-Johnson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 27, 2021
Docket20-3078
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Lavan Cortez-Johnson (United States v. Lavan Cortez-Johnson) 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. Lavan Cortez-Johnson, (8th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-3078 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Lavan Cortez-Johnson, also known as Gata

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________

Submitted: September 20, 2021 Filed: September 27, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

After Lavan Johnson pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846, and to distributing methamphetamine, see id. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), the district court1 deemed him a

1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. career offender and sentenced him to 180 months' imprisonment. Under § 4B1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines, a career offender includes a defendant who stands convicted of a felony controlled substance offense and has two prior felony convictions for controlled substance offenses. The district court determined that Johnson had two such predicate convictions, but he maintains that one of them, a Tennessee conviction for possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver or sell it, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(a)(4), does not qualify as a predicate.

Johnson concedes, however, that a prior decision of our court forecloses his argument, see United States v. Coleman, 977 F.3d 666, 670–71 (8th Cir. 2020), and says he is bringing this appeal merely to preserve his contention in case the Supreme Court or our en banc court overturns that case. Bound as we are by a prior decision, see United States v. Green, 946 F.3d 433, 440 (8th Cir. 2019), we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Affirmed. ______________________________

-2-

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

Related

United States v. Tereall Green
946 F.3d 433 (Eighth Circuit, 2019)
United States v. Alexander Coleman
977 F.3d 666 (Eighth Circuit, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Lavan Cortez-Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lavan-cortez-johnson-ca8-2021.