Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05034/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roy Warren Lanier
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

I-... 

;, . 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JUL 12 1990 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, } 

} 

Plaintiff-Appellee, } 

} 

v. } 

} 

ROY WARREN LANIER, } 

} 

Defendant-Appellant. } 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-5034 

(D.C. No. 86-CR-30-B} 

(N.D. Okla.} 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

ha s determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determi nation of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a ); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submi tted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Defendant appeals from an order of the district court denying 

his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. 

In 1986, defendant was convicted, following a plea of guilty, 

of c onspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, a Schedule II 

* 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 j udicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36 . 3 . 

Appellate Case: 89-5034 Document: 010110038280 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 1 
r 

non-narcotic controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 846, 84l(a)(l). He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment 

wi th a $50.00 special assessment. 

In 1988, defendant filed this Rule 35 motion. He alleged 

t ha t methamphetamine was classified as a Schedule III controlled 

substance at the time of his arrest and, therefore, he should have 

been sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 84l(l)(C) which set the maximum 

sentence at five years. 

The district court denied defendant's motion holding that 

methamphetamine was properly transferred from Schedule III to 

Schedule II in 1971. In his motion for reconsideration, defendant 

all eged that five years was the maximum sentence he could receive 

because he was sentenced prior to November 1, 1986, the effective 

date of the portion of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 

( t he 1984 Act) which amended section 841 by increasing sentencing 

limi ts. The district court in several orders issued in response 

to d efendant's motions and letters held that the 1984 Act became 

e f fective October 12, 1984. Therefore, the court held that 

defendant was subject to a maximum of fifteen years' imprisonment 

even if sentenced as a first-time offender. In the alternative, 

if the old sentencing limits were still in effect, defendant was 

not sentenced as a first-time offender. The district court held 

t ha t defendant's sentence was legal. 

On appeal, defendant argues he agreed to enter a plea on the 

ba s is that he would be treated as a first-time offender subject to 

a maximum sentence of five years. Defendant argues that the 1984 

Act did not take effect until November 1, 1986. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5034 Document: 010110038280 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 2 
We agree with the Ninth Circuit that the 1984 Act became 

effective October 12, 1984. See United States v. Calabrese, 825 

F.2d 1342, 1345 (9th Cir. 1987). Some exceptions were designated 

to take effect November 1, 1986. Defendant admits that the 

section relevant to his sentence "does not claim to be one of the 

exceptions, but Appellant desires that it should be considered as 

an exception." This we decline to do. The district court's 

sentence was legal. Therefore, we need not address whether 

defendant was sentenced as a first-time offender. 

Defendant argues that amphetamines were improperly classified 

as Schedule II drugs. Defendant argues that because section 812 

was not amended by the 1984 Act, Congress thereby rejected the 

attorney general's 1971 transfer of methamphetamine to Schedule II 

and rescheduled it under Section III. We disagree. The 1984 Act 

did not repeal the 1971 reclassification of methamphetamine. See 

United States v. Daniel, 813 F.2d 661, 663-64 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Likewise, we reject defendant's argument that the laws 

regulating amphetamines are so ambiguous and contradictory that 

they are incapable of enforcement. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-5034 Document: 010110038280 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 3