Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02090/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02090-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Mose McElrath
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2090

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Richard Mose McElrath, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 6, 2007

Filed: August 14, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard Mose McElrath, previously convicted for conspiring to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base (crack), appeals

the 300-month sentence the district court1

 imposed at resentencing after this court

remanded the case in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). In both

his counseled brief and in a pro se supplemental brief filed with leave of court,

McElrath argues that the enhanced punishment for cocaine base as opposed to powder

Appellate Case: 06-2090 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2007 Entry ID: 3340976
2

The remaining arguments in the pro se brief are not properly before us. See

United States v. Kress, 58 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 1995) (where party could have

raised issue in prior appeal but did not, court later hearing same case need not consider

matter). 

-2-

cocaine, embodied in the career offender Guideline, results in an improper disparity

between the Guidelines ranges for the two drugs.2

Any argument regarding sentencing disparity based on the differing penalties

between the Guidelines ranges for powder cocaine and crack cocaine is foreclosed by

United States v. Spears, 469 F.3d 1166, 1176 (8th Cir. 2006) (en banc), petition for

cert. filed, (U.S. Mar. 2, 2007) (No. 06-9864), in which we held that neither Booker

nor 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) authorizes district courts to reject the 100:1 ratio.

Additionally, we conclude McElrath’s sentence is not unreasonable. See United

States v. Johnson, 474 F.3d 515, 518, 522 (8th Cir. 2007) (sentence of 295 months in

prison for possession of 6 grams of cocaine base not unreasonable when court refused

to consider disparity between Guidelines penalties for distributing crack versus

powder cocaine); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005)

(reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion which may occur if (1)

court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight;

(2) court gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) court

considered only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors committed clear

error of judgment).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny McElrath’s pending pro se motion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2090 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2007 Entry ID: 3340976