Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03106/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03106-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James William Rogers
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS . F ~Leou1r:Rppeall United Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

JAMES WILLIAM ROGERS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN 21 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3106 

(D.C. No. 91-10055-01) 

(D. Kan. ) 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.** 

Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to declare the 

sentencing provisions of 21 U.S . C. § 841(b) (1) (B) (vii) and 

U.S . S . G. § 2Dl.1 unconstitutional as violative of equal protection 

principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 

Amendment . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to 

distribute approximately five hundred seventeen (517) marijuana 

plants and approximately two hundred eighty-four (284) grams of a 

* 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 . 1 0th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

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

34 (a); 1 0th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument . 

Appellate Case: 92-3106 Document: 010110157324 Date Filed: 01/21/1993 Page: 1 
substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana, in 

violation of 21 U. S.C. § 84l {a) (1 ) . Defendant filed a Motion to 

Declare the Penalty Phase of Statute and Related Sentencing 

Guidelines Unconstitutional, and the district court heard 

arguments on Defendant's motion at the March 3, 1992 sentencing 

hearing. The district court denied the motion, concluding that 

this court's recent decision in United States v . Lee, 957 F.2d 778 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 475 (1992 ) , was controlling. 

On appeal, Defendant presents the following arguments: (1 ) 

21 U.S.C. § 841 (b ) (1) (B) (vii) and U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.1, which provide 

identical penalties for those who possess 100 marijuana plants or 

100 kilograms of a mixture or substance containing marijuana lack 

a rational basis and therefore violate the Fifth Amendment, (2 ) 21 

U. S.C. § 841 (b) (1 ) (B) (vii) and U. S.S.G. § 2Dl.1 violate the Fifth 

Amendment because they irrationally penalize a marijuana grower 

more harshly than a marijuana processor, and (3) U.S . S.G. § 2Dl.l, 

which provides for enhanced sentencing in cases involving more 

than fifty marijuana plants lacks a rational basis and therefore 

violates the Fifth Amendment. 

Defendant's first argument is foreclosed by our decision in 

United States v. Lee, 957 F.2d 778. In Lee, we held that the 

mandatory sentencing scheme which treats 100 plants of marijuana 

the same as 100 kilograms of a mixture or substance containing 

marijuana has a rational basis and therefore does not violate 

equal protection principles. Id. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3106 Document: 010110157324 Date Filed: 01/21/1993 Page: 2 
Defendant also argues that marijuana growers and marijuana 

processors are irrationally t reated differently under 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841 (a ) and U.S.S . G. § 2D1 . 1. We disagree. It is true that a 

marijuana grower, arrested prior to harvesting, is sentenced on a 

one kilogram-per-plant basis. On the other hand, a marijuana 

grower, arrested immediately after harvesting, is sentenced 

according t o the actual weight of the marijuana, which, in this 

case, would not approach the one kilogram-per-plant level. 

However, it does not necessarily follow that the statutory scheme 

is irrational. See United States v. Osburn, 955 F.2d 1500, 1509 

(11th Cir. ) , cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 223, 113 S. Ct. 290 (1992 ) . 

Even though a statutory scheme may provide a potential l oophole or 

inconsistency, we need not deem the statute irrational. Id . A 

statute is not "irrational simply because it is an imperfect 

solution to the problems Congress intended to eradicate . " Id. 

(citing Azizi v. Thornburgh, 908 F.2d 1130, 1135 (2d Cir. 1990 ) . 

Defendant's final argument is that U.S . S . G. § 2Dl.1 lacks a 

rational basis and therefore violates the Due Process Clause of 

the Fifth Amendment. Section 2D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines 

provides: 

In the case of an offense involving marihuana 

plants, if the offense involved (A) 50 or more ma rihuana 

plants, treat each plant as equivalent to 1 KG of 

marihuana; (B) fewer than 50 marihuana plants, treat 

each plant as equivalent to 100 G of marihuana. 

Provided, howeve r, t hat if the actual weight of the 

marihuana is greater, use the actual weight of the 

marihuana . 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3106 Document: 010110157324 Date Filed: 01/21/1993 Page: 3 
Defendant contends that the increased weight assigned per plant in 

cases involving fifty or more marijuana plants is irrational. We 

disagree. Section 2D1.1 merely provides for enhanced sentencing 

in cases involving fifty or more marijuana plants. Enhanced 

sentencing for those possessing fifty or more marijuana plants 

reflects a legislative judgment that individuals possessing fifty 

or more plants are more likely to be major drug traffickers, and 

thus, a larger threat to society than those with fewer plants. 

This is clearly a rational legislative judgment which we will not 

second-guess. See United States v. Holmes, 961 F.2d 599, 602 (6th 

Cir. ) , cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 232 (1992); United States v. Webb, 

945 F.2d 967, 968 (7th Cir. 1991), cert . denied, 112 S. Ct. 1228 

(1992); United States v. Motz, 936 F.2d 1021, 1025 (9th Cir. 

1991) . 

AFFIRMED. 

- 4 -

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3106 Document: 010110157324 Date Filed: 01/21/1993 Page: 4