NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0285n.06 Filed: Apr il 15, 2009 No. 08-5400 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. GREGORY B ANKS, J R., De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL

FROM THE U

NI TED S T ATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KE NTUCKY OPI NI ON

Before: G UY, G ILMAN, and COOK, Circ uit Jud ges. RONALD LEE GILMAN, Cir cuit Judge. Gr e g or y B a nk s , Jr
. w a s c h a

r g e d w ithtw o c ounts of distributing c rac k co ca i n e, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), af ter selling the drugto a confide ntial informan t wh i le under police surve illance. He pled g uilty and wa s sentence d to 60
mon ths ’ i mpr iso nme nt p ur su ant t o th e mand a tor y min imum e sta

bl is hed by

21 U. S.C. § 841(b)( 1)(B )(iii). I n this timely appea l, Ba nks argues t hat t he dis trict court e rre d by not depar ting below the 60- month mini mum sent en ce . He also cha lleng es this court’s e stablished body of prec e de nt h old ingthat th e statut or y c ra c k- c oc a ine /po wd e r- c oc a ine se nte nc ingdis pa ri ty is constitutional. For the r easons state d below, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the district cour t.
I. BACKG ROUND I n 2 00 6, B ank s sold 4. 67 g ra ms of c ra c k c oc a ine to a

c on fi de nti a l in fo rm ant w or kin g wi th the Cov ing ton , K e ntu c ky po lic e de pa

rtme nt. B ank s late r sol d 6.5 4 g ra ms o f c ra c k to the same-2-

informant. A g rand ju ry i n t h e E ast ern D istrict of Kentuc ky indicted B anks on one c ount of distributing less than five g rams of cr ack a nd on one count of

distributing over

five g rams of c rac k, both in violation of 21 U.S.C
. § 841(a) . After initially pleadingnot guilty , Ba

nks rec onsidered a

nd enter ed a guilty

plea. The district court found B anks g uilty on both counts of the indictment. T h e P ro b at i o nOf

fi ce p re p ar eda P re s en t en ce R ep o rt i nco n j u n ct i o nwi t h Ba n k s ’s sent en ci n g. Aft e r ta k in g in to a c c o u nt a thr ee- level re duction for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3 .E 1. 1( b) , Banks ’s to tal of fe ns e le ve l w a s d e te rm ine d to be 21 . B ank s h a d a numbe r o f p a st convictions, resulting a cr iminal hist ory cate g ory of I I I . Ba sed on an of

fense level of 21 a

nd a criminal history

cate g ory of I I I , Ba

nks’s Guidelines ra

ng e wa s determined to be betwee n 46 and 57 months of imprisonment. But 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( B) sets a mandatory minimum sentenc e of 60 months for the sec ond count. Ba nks argued in his sentencingmemoranda that the disparity

betwee n the pena lties for cr ackcoca ine offe nses and powder-c ocaine offe nses was g reater than nece ssary to achie ve the se ntencing ob je c tiv e s se t f

or th i n 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 53 (a ), and that the ru le of

le nit y sh ou ld a pp ly to a llo w h im t o be se nte nc e d b e low

the statut or

y min imum se nte nc e . T he dis tr ic t c ourt re je c te d th e se argum ents . I n M arc h 2 00 8, it s e nte nc e d B ank s to 46 mon ths ’ imp ri so nme nt on Count On e (d istri bu tio n of le ss than five g rams of c rac k) and 60 months’ imprison m en t o n C o u n t Two (distribution of over f ive g rams o f c r a c k )
. T h e s e n te n c e s w e r e s e t to r u n c o n c u r

r e n tl y , r e s u lt in g in a to ta l te r m of imp ri so nme nt o f 6 0 mo nth s. B ank s f ile d a tim e ly no tic e of a pp e a l.
III . A NA LY SIS-3-

Ba nks argues on appe al that his sentenc e is based on a n illogica l disti nction betwee n cra ck and powder coca ine made by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( B) . As it stands, the statute dictates that a drug traff icker dealing in cra ck cocaine is subject t o the s ame sentence as one dealing in 100 times more powde r c oc a ine . T he statut e a lso e sta bli sh e s a mand a tor

y min imum pe na lty

of 60 mon ths ’ impriso n m en t fo r the possession or distribution of more than 5 g rams of c rac k coca ine. B anks
rea sons that this enhance d mandatory sentenc e is g reater than ne cessa ry to promote the purpose s of sentenc ing se t forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This court normally

revi ews sentencing decisions for r easona bleness. United States v. Booke r , 5 43 U. S. 2 20 , 2 60 -6 1 ( 20 05 ). B ut the dis tr ic t cou rt la c ke d disc re tio n to sen te nc e B ank s to a term of i mprisonment lower than the 60-mont h statutory minimum
. Se e Un ite d S tat es v . F ra nk lin , 499 F.3d 578, 586 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (“A lthough Booke r g ave substantial discr etion to the sentenc ing court to impose senten ces below a mandatory maxi mum, nothing in Booke r a llo ws the c ourt

to
ne g a te the imp os iti on

of a mand a tor y min imum se nte nc e .” ); United St ates v. W heele r , 535 F.3d 446, 458 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that the di s t ri ct co u rt was bound to impose the mandatory minimum
s e n t e n c e u n d e r 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § 8 4 1 , t h u s f o r e c l o s i n g an y Booke r , Si xth A me ndme nt, or re a so na ble ne ss arguments). Moreove r, this c ourt has repe atedly reje cted constitutional c halleng es to pe nalty provisions that treat cra ck coca ine more harshly than powder coca ine. See, e .g. , Un ite d S tat es v . B lai r , 214 F.3d 69 0, 70 2 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 0) ; United St a t es v. B i n g h am , 81 F.3d 617, 630- 31 (6th Cir. 1996). B anks
conce des that this is the curre nt sta t e o f t h e law, but urg es us to ree x amine this court’s pr evious ruling s in light of t he United States Sentenc ing Commission’s 2007 amendments, which r efle cted the Commiss ion’s ear lier finding s that the disparity in punishments between c rac k coca ine and-4-

powder coca ine offe nses has a n unfairly

disproport i o n at e i m pact on blac k defe ndants. See Am en d m en ts to the Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts, 72 Fed. Re g . 28571-28572 (May 21, 2007); United States SentencingCommi ssion, Report to Congre ss: Cocaine and F eder al Se nte nc in g P oli c y

8 ( May 20 07 ) ( “ Th e c ur

re nt s e ve ri ty

of c ra c k c oc a ine pe na lti e s mo stl y imp a c ts minorities.”). Pursuant to these f indings, the 2007 a

mendments reduc ed the of fense level assoc iated with eac h quantity

of cr ack by

two levels. Id. But the Supr e me Co u rt h a s h e ld th a t t h o s e a me n d me n ts “ s ti ll p r o d u c e s e n te n c ing rang es key ed to t he mandatory minimum s in the 1986 Act.” Kimbrough v. United States , 128 S. Ct . 558, 569 n.10 (2007). Nothing a bout the Guidelines ame ndments or the Booke r/Kimbrough lin e of c a se s, there fore , indicates that we should reexamine this co u rt ’s p ast ruling s on the constitutionality of § 841(b). I n s um, B ank s c ann ot d e mon str a te tha t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d in im

po sin g the 60 -m on th
se nte nc e . Th e dis tr ic t c ourt la c ke d any dis c re tio n to iss ue a se nte nc e be low

the statut or

y min imum, wh ic h h a s b e e n r e pe a te dly he ld co ns tit

uti on a l by thi s cou

rt . We p re su me that B ank s h a s r a ise d th is issue solely

to preser ve it for possible Supreme Court r eview. T hat he ha s acc omplished, but nothi ng
more.
III . C ON CL USI ON For all of the re asons set for

th above, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt .