Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01397/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01397-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duvalier Antonio Davis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

DUVALIER ANTONIO DAVIS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FILBD . United State& Court of Ap1>=l~ Tenth Circul~ 

MAY 2 ~ 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-1397 

(D ,C. No. 91-F-1748) 

(D. Colorado) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee . 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this panel . See Fed. R. App . P. 

34(e); 10th Cir. R. 34 .1 .9 . 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36 . 3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1397 Document: 010110249184 Date Filed: 05/22/1992 Page: 1
Duvalier A. Davis appeals the denial of his claim for relief, 

under 28 u.s.c. S 2255, in which he asserted the district court 

did not have jurisdiction to try him and that "cocaine base" is a 

constitutionally vague term. We affirm. 

Mr. Davis contends that because he was arrested by local 

police, and not federal agents, federal authorities had no 

jurisdiction over him. He further asserts he was not arrested for 

an offense against the United States. The argument is specious. 

Violation of 21 u.s.c . §§ 841(a)(l) and (b)(l)(A), the 

conduct for which Mr. Davis was indicted, results in the 

commission of a federal crime . That result is not abrogated 

because the offender was not arrested by a federal agent. The 

determinative fact is whether the charged conduct violates a 

federal law for which a federal grand jury can return an 

indictment. 

Mr . Davis confuses the authority granted the Attorney General 

under 21 U.S.C. S 873 to cooperate with s tate and local agencies 

in the investigation of drug offenses with the ultimate power of 

the federal government to prosecute persons who violate federal 

law. Even though conduct may constitute e i ther a state or federal 

crime, the determination to prosecute is discretionary and cannot 

be denied in the absence of proof of improper motivation. 

Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978); United States v. 

Andersen, 940 F.2d 593 (10th Cir. 1991). 

The argument that the term, "cocaine base," is 

constitutionally vague has been ruled upon by this court already 

and decided contrary to Mr. Davis' contention. See United 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1397 Document: 010110249184 Date Filed: 05/22/1992 Page: 2
States v. Turner, 928 F.2d 956, 960 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

_U.S._, 112 S. Ct. 230 (1991). 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1397 Document: 010110249184 Date Filed: 05/22/1992 Page: 3