Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02786/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02786-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ashley Lynn Springer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2786

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Ashley Lynn Springer, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 29, 2007

Filed: July 9, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ashley Springer appeals the 60-month prison sentence imposed by the district

court1

 after she pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute crack

cocaine and to distribute powder cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and

distribution of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 18

U.S.C. § 2. Acknowledging that this sentence was the statutory minimum, Springer

argues that application of the 100 to 1 ratio for quantities of powder cocaine and crack

cocaine results in an improper disparity between the Guideline ranges for the two

Appellate Case: 06-2786 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2007 Entry ID: 3327368
-2-

drugs, and she requests resentencing using the lower range produced by a 20 to 1

ratio. 

Springer’s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Spears, 469 F.3d 1166,

1176 (8th Cir. 2006) (en banc), which held that neither United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005), nor 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) authorizes district courts to reject the 100

to 1 ratio mandated by Congress and reflected in the Guidelines. We conclude that

the sentence is not unreasonable. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 261-62 (standard of

review); United States v. Pamperin, 456 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court,

without 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) motion by government, was without authority to impose

sentence below statutory minimum). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2786 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2007 Entry ID: 3327368