United States v. Thomas Lyle Hayden

898 F.2d 966, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 25884, 1990 WL 39267
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 19, 1990
Docket89-2997
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 898 F.2d 966 (United States v. Thomas Lyle Hayden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 Lyle Hayden, 898 F.2d 966, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 25884, 1990 WL 39267 (5th Cir. 1990).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Lyle Hayden appeals from the imposition of his sentence pursuant to the application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Hayden was convicted of various narcotics offenses. Because of Hayden’s prior felony convictions of the same nature, Hayden is classified as a career offender under Section 4B1.1 of the Guidelines. This translates into a criminal history category of VI and an offense level of 34. Absent the classification as a career offender, Hayden would be subject to an offense level of 26 and a criminal history category of V.

In this appeal, Hayden argues that the classification of a defendant as a “career offender” under 28 U.S.C. § 994(h) and Sentencing Guideline 4B1.1 is unconstitutional as arbitrary, capricious and viola-tive of Hayden’s due process and equal protection rights. We do not agree.

The imposition of greater punishment based on the nature of the crime and on the recidivist nature of the perpetrator is recognized as a legitimate sentencing principle. See, e.g., Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). Section 4B1.1 implements Congress’ directive that the guidelines base a defendant’s sentence upon consideration of the offense committed and the defendant’s criminal history. See United States v. White, 869 F.2d 822 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 3172, 104 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1989).

We perceive no due process or equal protection violation in the instant case. The sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

United States v. Cedric Jones
541 F. App'x 468 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Prudhome
13 F.3d 147 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Steven Michael Johns
984 F.2d 1162 (Eleventh Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Hines
802 F. Supp. 559 (D. Massachusetts, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
898 F.2d 966, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 25884, 1990 WL 39267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-thomas-lyle-hayden-ca5-1990.