United States v. Thomas

Second Circuit

United States v. Thomas

43 F. App'x 443

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedAugust 20, 2002

DocketDocket No. 01-1263

StatusPublished

This text of 43 F. App'x 443 (United States v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Thomas, 43 F. App'x 443 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Fermina Thomas appeals her conviction following a guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a substance containing a cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A)(iii). Thomas’s sole contention on appeal is that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) unconstitutionally requires a judge to determine the quantity of drugs for sentencing purposes, and that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) is therefore unconstitutional on its face. Because a panel of this court recently rejected the same argument, U.S. v. Outen, 286 F.3d 622, 634-36 (2d Cir.2002), we affirm Thomas’s conviction and sentence.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Fermina Thomas appeals her conviction following a guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a substance containing a cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A)(iii). Thomas’s sole contention on appeal is that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) unconstitutionally requires a judge to determine the quantity of drugs for sentencing purposes, and that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) is therefore unconstitutional on its face. Because a panel of this court recently rejected the same argument, U.S. v. Outen, 286 F.3d 622, 634-36 (2d Cir.2002), we affirm Thomas’s conviction and sentence.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 F. App'x 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-thomas-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack