United States v. Lorenzo Welch

933 F.2d 1010, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16866, 1991 WL 88361
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMay 28, 1991
Docket90-5678
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 933 F.2d 1010 (United States v. Lorenzo Welch) 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. Lorenzo Welch, 933 F.2d 1010, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16866, 1991 WL 88361 (6th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

933 F.2d 1010

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Lorenzo WELCH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-5678.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 28, 1991.

Before RALPH B. GUY, Jr. and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and JOINER, Senior District Judge.*

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Lorenzo Welch was convicted of two counts of possession with the intent to distribute Schedule II substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Welch to a forty-one (41) month term of imprisonment and this appeal followed. All parties to the appeal have agreed to waive oral argument.

Upon consideration, we find that there is no reversible error in the case on review. Welch contends that, as the drugs he possessed (talwin and dilaudid) were in pharmacological form, only the ascertainable weight of the drug and not the gross weight of each tablet should have been considered in sentencing. We find this argument to be without merit. See, e.g., United States v. Lazarchik, 924 F.2d 211, 214 (11th Cir.1991) (and cases cited therein).

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Charles W. Joiner, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

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

Related

United States v. James Earl Landers
39 F.3d 643 (Sixth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
933 F.2d 1010, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16866, 1991 WL 88361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lorenzo-welch-ca6-1991.