United States v. Logan

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 27, 2002
Docket01-4016
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Logan (United States v. Logan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Logan, (4th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-4016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TAMMY MARIE LOGAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-00-6)

Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 27, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert E. Hensley, Jr., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Thomas R. Ascik, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Tammy Marie Logan appeals her conviction and sentence, imposed

pursuant to a guilty plea, for conspiracy to possess cocaine base

with the intent to distribute and possession of cocaine base with

intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 846 (West

1999 & Supp. 2001). Finding no error, we affirm Logan’s conviction

and sentence.

Logan contends her concurrent 121-month sentences are invalid

under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Because Logan’s

sentence is not above the twenty year statutory maximum of

§ 841(b)(1)(C), we find Apprendi is not implicated and affirm her

sentence. See United States v. Dinnall, 269 F.3d 418 (4th Cir.

2001); United States v. Promise, 255 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2001) (en

banc), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Sept. 20, 2001) (No.

01-6398).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

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. Widney Trevor Dinnall
269 F.3d 418 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Logan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-logan-ca4-2002.