United States v. Martin
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10532 Conference Calendar __________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ANTHONY DARRELL MARTIN,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94CR00149 - - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony Darrell Martin appeals from his sentence following a
guilty plea for money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1956(a)(1). Martin argues that the disparity in the penalty
provisions and sentencing guidelines applicable to crack cocaine
and cocaine powder violates his equal protection and due process
rights. Martin argues that the district court erred in
considering the guidelines for cocaine base under U.S.S.G.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. No. 95-10532 -2-
§ 2D1.1 because he never possessed or distributed crack cocaine
and his "attempt" to do so was never fulfilled.
The argument that the disparate sentencing provisions for
crack cocaine and cocaine powder in the sentencing guidelines
violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses has been
rejected. See United States v. Galloway, 951 F.2d 64, 65-66 (5th
Cir. 1992). In the factual resume supporting the guilty plea,
Martin stipulated to negotiating a drug transaction involving two
kilograms of crack cocaine. Under § 1B1.2(a), which provides in
part that in the case of a plea agreement containing a
stipulation that specifically establishes a more serious offense
than the offense of conviction, the offense guideline is
determined based on the section in Chapter Two most applicable to
the stipulated offense. The district court did not err in
sentencing Martin under § 2D1.1, the applicable provision for the
stipulated drug trafficking offense.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Martin (United States v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.