Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02948/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02948-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melvin Quinn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

2

We deny Quinn’s February 9, 2005, pro se motion.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2948

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Melvin Quinn, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2005

Filed: March 9, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Quinn was convicted of one count of knowingly and intentionally

distributing five grams or more of cocaine base, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. He

appeals from the sentence imposed upon him by the district court.1

 We affirm.2

Appellate Case: 04-2948 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2005 Entry ID: 1876505 
-2-

I.

Section 841(b)(1)(B) of Title 21 provides that an individual convicted of

distributing five grams or more of cocaine base shall be sentenced to a minimum of

five years and a maximum of forty years’ imprisonment. When an individual

commits that offense “after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become

final,” Section 841(b)(1)(B) increases the mandatory minimum from five to ten years.

 Because Quinn had a 1997 state felony drug conviction, the district court sentenced

him to ten years’ imprisonment. 

Quinn asserts that the district court’s conclusions that his prior state conviction

constituted a felony drug offense and that the conviction had become final were both

impermissible instances of judicial fact finding. These conclusions are part and

parcel to the fact of a prior conviction and do not implicate constitutional concerns.

See United States v. Vieth, No. 04-1451, slip op. at 8 (8th Cir. Feb. 8, 2005) (“As to

the enhancement for a prior conviction, the Supreme Court has consistently said that

the fact of a prior conviction is for the court to determine, not a jury.”).

II.

Quinn argued at sentencing and now asserts on appeal that the United States

Sentencing Guidelines as a whole are unconstitutional. Quinn’s sentence was

determined based upon the mandatory minimum sentence set forth in the governing

criminal statute, not upon the application of the federal sentencing guidelines. See

Vieth, slip op. at 8. In any event, the Supreme Court has now made clear that the

guidelines as a whole are not unconstitutional. See United States v. Booker, 125 S.

Ct. 738, 768 (2005) (severing and excising two provisions of the Sentencing Reform

Act of 1984 but leaving intact the remaining guidelines).

 

The sentence is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2948 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2005 Entry ID: 1876505