Source: http://legaliq.com/Case/Chapman_V_United_States_500_US_453
Timestamp: 2017-06-24 08:45:16
Document Index: 22045454

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 1111', '§ 848', '§ 2114', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 802', '§ 2', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841']

Chapman v. United States (500 U.S. 453, 111 S. Ct. 1919, 114 L. Ed. 2d 524)
/ Chapman v. United States
Case Name: Chapman v. United States
Citations: 500 U.S. 453, 111 S. Ct. 1919, 114 L. Ed. 2d 524, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 3020
Docket #: 90-5744
*455 T. Christopher Kelly, by appointment of the Court, 498 U. S. 1045, argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners. Donald Thomas Bergerson filed briefs for Stanley Marshall, respondent under this Court's Rule 12.4, urging reversal.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit en banc held that the weight of the blotter paper or other carrier should be included in the weight of the "mixture or substance containing a detectable amount" of LSD when computing the sentence for a defendant convicted of distributing LSD. The Court of Appeals also found that Congress had a rational basis for including the carrier along with the weight of the drug, and therefore the statute and the Sentencing Guidelines did not violate the Constitution. United States v. Marshall, 908 F. 2d 1312 (1990). We granted certiorari, 498 U. S. 1011 (1990), and now affirm.
Petitioners maintain that Congress could not have intended to include the weight of an LSD carrier for sentencing purposes because the carrier will constitute nearly all of the weight of the entire unit, and the sentence will, therefore, be based on the weight of the carrier, rather than the drug. The same point can be made about drugs like heroin and cocaine, *460 however, and Congress clearly intended the dilutant, cutting agent, or carrier medium to be included in the weight of those drugs for sentencing purposes. Inactive ingredients are combined with pure heroin or cocaine, and the mixture is then sold to consumers as a heavily diluted form of the drug. In some cases, the concentration of the drug in the mixture is very low. E. g., United States v. Buggs, 904 F. 2d 1070 (CA7 1990) (1.2% heroin); United States v. Dorsey, 198 U. S. App. D. C. 313, 591 F. 2d 922 (1978) (2% heroin); United States v. Smith, 601 F. 2d 972 (CA8) (2.7% and 8.5% heroin), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 879 (1979). But, if the carrier is a "mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of the drug," then under the language of the statute the weight of the mixture or substance, and not the weight of the pure drug, is controlling.
The Controlled Substances Penalties Amendments Act of 1984, which was a chapter of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-473, 98 Stat. 2068, first made punishment dependent upon the quantity of the controlled substance involved. The maximum sentence for distribution of five grams or more of LSD was set at 20 years. 21 U. S. C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iv) (1982 ed., Supp. II). The 1984 amendments were intended "to provide a more rational penalty structure for the major drug trafficking offenses," S. Rep. *461 No. 98-225, p. 255 (1983), by eliminating sentencing disparaties caused by classifying drugs as narcotic and nonnarcotic. Id., at 256. Penalties were based instead upon the weight of the pure drug involved. See United States v. McGeehan, 824 F. 2d 677, 681 (CA8 1987), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 1061 (1988).
The current penalties for LSD distribution originated in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207. Congress adopted a "market-oriented" approach to punishing drug trafficking, under which the total quantity of what is distributed, rather than the amount of pure drug involved, is used to determine the length of the sentence. H. R. Rep. No. 98-845, pt. 1, pp. 11-12, 17 (1986). To implement that principle, Congress set mandatory minimum sentences corresponding to the weight of a "mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of" the various controlled substances, including LSD. 21 U. S. C. §§ 841(b)(1) (A)(i)-(viii) and (B)(i)-(viii). It intended the penalties for drug trafficking to be graduated according to the weight of the drugs in whatever form they were foundcut or uncut, pure or impure, ready for wholesale or ready for distribution at the retail level. Congress did not want to punish retail traffickers less severely, even though they deal in smaller quantities of the pure drug, because such traffickers keep the street markets going. H. R. Rep. No. 99-845, supra, at pt. 1, p. 12.
We think that the blotter paper used in this case, and blotter paper customarily used to distribute LSD, is a "mixture or substance containing a detectable amount" of LSD. In so holding, we confirm the unanimous conclusion of the Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.[3] Neither the statute *462 nor the Sentencing Guidelines define the terms "mixture" and "substance," nor do they have any established common-law meaning. Those terms, therefore, must be given their ordinary meaning. See Moskal v. United States, 498 U. S. 103, 108 (1990). A "mixture" is defined to include "a portion of matter consisting of two or more components that do not bear a fixed proportion to one another and that however thoroughly commingled are regarded as retaining a separate existence." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1449 (1986). A "mixture" may also consist of two substances blended together so that the particles of one are diffused among the particles of the other. 9 Oxford English Dictionary 921 (2d ed. 1989). LSD is applied to blotter paper in a solvent, which is absorbed into the paper and ultimately evaporates. After the solvent evaporates, the LSD is left behind in a form that can be said to "mix" with the paper. The LSD crystals are inside of the paper, so that they are commingled with it, but the LSD does not chemically combine with the paper. Thus, it retains a separate existence and can be released by dropping the paper into a liquid or by swallowing the paper itself. The LSD is diffused among the fibers of the paper. Like heroin or cocaine mixed with cutting agents, the LSD cannot be distinguished from the blotter paper, nor easily separated from it. Like cutting agents used with other drugs that are ingested, the blotter paper, gel, or sugar cube carrying LSD can be and often is ingested with the drug.
The rule of lenity, however, is not applicable unless there is a "grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the language and structure of the Act," Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S. 814, 831 (1974), such that even after a court has "`seize[d] every thing from which aid can be derived,'" it is still "left with an ambiguous statute." United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 347 (1971) (quoting United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386 (1805)). "The rule [of lenity] comes into operation at the end of the process of construing what Congress has expressed, not at the beginning as an overriding consideration of being lenient to wrongdoers." Callanan v. United States, 364 U. S. 587, 596 (1961). See also, e. g., Moskal v. United States, supra, at 107-108. The statutory language and structure indicate that the weight of a carrier should be included as a "mixture or substance containing a detectable amount" of LSD when determining the sentence for an LSD distributor. A straightforward reading of § 841(b) does not produce a result "so `absurd or glaringly unjust,'" United States v. Rodgers, 466 U. S. 475, 484 (1984) (citation *464 omitted), as to raise a "reasonable doubt" about Congress' intent. Moskal v. United States, supra, at 108. There is no reason to resort to the rule of lenity in these circumstances.[4]
Petitioners also argue that constructions which cast doubt on a statute's constitutionality should be avoided, citing Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U. S. 440, 465-466 (1989). "`[E]very reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,'" Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988), but reading "mixture" to include blotter paper impregnated with LSD crystals is not only a reasonable construction of § 841(b), but it is one that does not raise "grave doubts" about the constitutionality of the provision. United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 401 (1916). The canon of construction that a court should strive to interpret a statute in a way that will avoid an unconstitutional construction is useful in close cases, but it is "`not a license for the judiciary to rewrite language enacted by the legislature.'" United States v. Monsanto, 491 U. S. 600, 611 (1989). Petitioners' argument is unavailing here for the reasons we explain below.
Petitioners argue that the due process of law guaranteed them by the Fifth Amendment is violated by determining the lengths of their sentences in accordance with the weight of the LSD "carrier," a factor which they insist is arbitrary. They argue preliminarily that the right to be free from deprivations of liberty as a result of arbitrary sentences is fundamental, and therefore the statutory provision at issue may be *465 upheld only if the Government has a compelling interest in the classification in question. But we have never subjected the criminal process to this sort of truncated analysis, and we decline to do so now. Every person has a fundamental right to liberty in the sense that the Government may not punish him unless and until it proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a criminal trial conducted in accordance with the relevant constitutional guarantees. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 535, 536, and n. 16 (1979). But a person who has been so convicted is eligible for, and the court may impose, whatever punishment is authorized by statute for his offense, so long as that penalty is not cruel and unusual, McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79, 92, n. 8 (1986); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215, 224 (1976), and so long as the penalty is not based on an arbitrary distinction that would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In this context, as we noted in Jones v. United States, 463 U. S. 354, 362, n. 10 (1983), an argument based on equal protection essentially duplicates an argument based on due process.
Petitioners argue that those selling different numbers of doses, and, therefore, with different degrees of culpability, will be subject to the same minimum sentence because of choosing different carriers.[6] The same objection could *467 be made to a statute that imposed a fixed sentence for distributing any quantity of LSD, in any form, with any carrier. Such a sentencing scheme  not considering individual degrees of culpability  would clearly be constitutional. Congress has the power to define criminal punishments without giving the courts any sentencing discretion. Ex parte United States, 242 U. S. 27 (1916). Determinate sentences were found in this country's penal codes from its inception, see United States v. Grayson, 438 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1978), and some have remained until the present. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 1111 (mandatory life imprisonment under federal first-degree-murder statute); 21 U. S. C. § 848(b) (mandatory life imprisonment for violation of drug "super-kingpin" statute); 18 U. S. C. § 2114 (1982 ed.) (flat 25-year sentence for armed robbery of a postal carrier) (upheld against due process challenge in United States v. Smith, 602 F. 2d 834 (CA8), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 902 (1979), and Smith v. United States, 284 F. 2d 789, 791 (CA5 1960)). A sentencing scheme providing for "individualized sentences rests not on constitutional commands, but on public policy enacted into statutes." Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 604-605 (1978) (plurality opinion). See also Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 364 (1989). That distributors of varying degrees of culpability might be subject to the same sentence does not mean that the penalty system for LSD distribution is unconstitutional.
We likewise hold that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague. First Amendment freedoms are not infringed by § 841, so the vagueness claim must be evaluated as the statute is applied to the facts of this case. United States v. Powell, 423 U. S. 87, 92 (1975). The fact that there may be plausible arguments against describing blotter paper impregnated with LSD as a "mixture or substance" containing LSD does not mean that the statute is vague. This is particularly so since whatever debate there is would center around the *468 appropriate sentence and not the criminality of the conduct. We upheld the defendant's conviction in United States v. Rodgers, 466 U. S. 475 (1984), even though the Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which the defendant had resided had construed the statute as not applying to one in his position. Here, on the contrary, all of the Courts of Appeals that have decided the issue, and all except one District Court, United States v. Healy, 729 F. Supp. 140 (DC 1990), have held that the weight of the carrier medium must be included in determining the appropriate sentence.
This was the conclusion reached by five Circuit Judges in their two opinions dissenting from the holding of the majority of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit sitting en banc in this case.[1] In one of the dissenting opinions, Judge *469 Cummings pointed out that there is no evidence that Congress intended the weight of the carrier to be considered in the sentence determination in LSD cases, and that there is good reason to believe Congress was unaware of the inequitable consequences of the Court's interpretation of the statute. United States v. Marshall, 908 F. 2d 1312, 1327-1328 (CA7 1990). As Judge Posner noted in the other dissenting opinion, the severity of the sentences in LSD cases would be comparable to those in other drug cases only if the weight of the LSD carrier were disregarded. Id., at 1335.
Presumably in response, Senator Biden offered a technical amendment, the purpose of which was to correct an inequity that had become apparent from several recent court decisions.[8] According to Senator Biden: "The amendment remedies this inequity by removing the weight of the carrier from the calculation of the weight of the mixture or substance." *472 135 Cong. Rec. 23518 (1989).[9] Although Senator Biden's amendment was adopted as part of Amendment No. 976 to S. 1711, the bill never passed the House of Representatives. Senator Kennedy also tried to clarify the language of 21 U. S. C. § 841. He proposed the following amendment:
"A person who sells LSD on blotter paper is not a worse criminal than one who sells the same number of doses on gelatin cubes, but he is subject to a heavier punishment. A person who sells five doses of LSD on sugar cubes is not a worse person than a manufacturer of LSD who is caught with 19,999 doses in pure form, but the former is subject to a ten-year mandatory minimum noparole sentence while the latter is not even subject to the five-year minimum. If defendant Chapman, who received five years for selling a thousand doses of LSD on blotter paper, had sold the same number of doses in pure form, his Guidelines sentence would have been fourteen months. And defendant Marshall's sentence for selling almost 12,000 doses would have been four years rather than twenty. The defendant in United States v. Rose, 881 F. 2d 386, 387 (7th Cir. 1989), must have bought an unusually heavy blotter paper, for he sold only 472 doses, yet his blotter paper weighed 7.3 gramsmore than Chapman's, although Chapman sold more than twice as many doses. Depending on the weight of the carrier medium (zero when the stuff is sold in pure form), and excluding the orange juice case, the Guidelines range for selling 198 doses (the amount in Dean) or 472 doses (the amount in Rose) stretches from ten months to 365 months; for selling a thousand doses (Chapman), from fifteen to 365 months; and for selling 11,751 doses (Marshall), from 33 months to life. In none of these computations, by the way, does the weight of the LSD itself make a differenceso slight is its weight relative to that of the carrierexcept of course when it is sold in pure form. Congress might as well have said: if there is a carrier, weigh the carrier and forget the LSD.
There is nothing in our jurisprudence that compels us to interpret an ambiguous statute to reach such an absurd result. In fact, we have specifically declined to do so in the past, even when the statute was not ambiguous, on the ground that Congress could not have intended such an outcome.[13] In construing a statute, Learned Hand wisely counseled us to look first to the words of the statute, but "not to make a fortress out of the dictionary; but to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish, whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning." Cabell v. Markham, 148 F. 2d 737, 739 (CA2), aff'd, 326 U. S. 404 (1945). In the past, we have recognized that "frequently words of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough to include an act in question, and yet a consideration of ... the absurd results which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it unreasonable to believe that the legislator intended to include the particular act." Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 459 (1892). These words guided our *477 construction of the statute at issue in Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U. S. 440, 454 (1989), when we also noted that "[l]ooking beyond the naked text for guidance is perfectly proper when the result it apparently decrees is difficult to fathom or where it seems inconsistent with Congress' intention . . . ." Id., at 455.
Even among dealers using blotter paper, the sentences can vary because the weight of the blotter paper varies from dealer to dealer. Petitioners' blotter paper, containing 1,000 doses of LSD, weighed 5.7 grams, or 5.7 milligrams per dose. In United States v. Rose, 881 F. 2d 386, 387 (CA7 1989), 472 doses on blotter paper weighed 7.3 grams, or 15.4 milligrams per dose. In United States v. Elrod, 898 F. 2d 60 (CA6 1990), 1,990 doses on blotter paper weighed 11 grams, or 5.5 milligrams per dose. In United States v. Healy, 729 F. Supp. 140, 141 (DC 1990), 5,000 doses on blotter paper weighed 44.133 grams, or 8.8 milligrams per dose.
[3] United States v. Larsen, 904 F. 2d 562 (CA10 1990); United States v. Elrod, 898 F. 2d 60 (CA6), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 835 (1990); United States v. Bishop, 894 F. 2d 981, 985-987 (CA8 1990); United States v. Daly, 883 F. 2d 313, 316-318 (CA4 1989), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 1116 (1990); United States v. Rose, 881 F. 2d 386 (CA7 1989); United States v. Taylor, 868 F. 2d 125, 127-128 (CA5 1989).
[4] Petitioners point to the views of some Members of Congress that the use of the phrase "mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of LSD" was less than precise. These views were manifested by the introduction of bills in the Senate that would have excluded LSD carrier mediums from the "mixture or substance" clause. Neither of the bills was enacted into law, and it is questionable whether they even amount to subsequent legislative historyitself an unreliable guide to legislative intent. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 566-567 (1988); Quern v. Mandley, 436 U. S. 725, 736, n. 10 (1978).
[5] Every Court of Appeals to have addressed the issue has held that this sentencing scheme is rational. See United States v. Mendes, 912 F. 2d 434, 438-439 (CA10 1990); see United States v. Murphy, 899 F. 2d 714, 717 (CA8 1990); United States v. Bishop, 894 F. 2d, at 986-987; United States v. Holmes, 838 F. 2d 1175, 1177-1178 (CA11), cert. denied, 486 U. S. 1058 (1988); United States v. Klein, 860 F. 2d 1489, 1501 (CA9 1988); United States v. Hoyt, 879 F. 2d 505, 512 (CA9 1989); United States v. Savinovich, 845 F. 2d 834, 839 (CA9), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 943 (1988); United States v. Ramos, 861 F. 2d 228, 231-232 (CA9 1988).
[1] Chief Judge Bauer and Judges Wood, Cudahy, and Posner joined Judge Cummings' dissent, see United States v. Marshall, 908 F. 2d 1312, 1326 (CA7 1990), and all of these judges also joined Judge Posner's dissent. See id., at 1331.
[2] See United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576, 580 (1981) ("In determining the scope of a statute, we look first to its language").
[3] The statutory definitional section applicable to § 841, 21 U. S. C. § 802, does not define "mixture or substance."
[5] The majority of the Seventh Circuit also identified the combination as a "mixture," see 908 F. 2d, at 1317-1318; however, other Circuits that have addressed the question have either identified the combination as a substance, see, e. g., United States v. Bishop, 894 F. 2d 981, 986 (CA8 1990); United States v. Daly, 883 F. 2d 313, 317 (CA4 1989); United States v. Taylor, 868 F. 2d 125, 127 (CA5 1989), or have simply held that the combination fell within the statutory language of a "mixture or substance," without distinguishing between the two. See, e. g., United States v. Elrod, 898 F. 2d 60, 61 (CA6 1990); United States v. Larsen, 904 F. 2d 562, 563 (CA10 1990).
"With respect to blotter paper, sugar cubes, or other mediums on which LSD or other controlled substances may be absorbed, the Commission has not definitively stated whether the carrier medium is considered part of a drug `mixture or substance' for guideline application purposes. In order to ensure consistency between the guidelines and the statute, Application Note 1 to § 2D1.1 states that the term `mixture or substance' has the same meaning for guideline purposes as in 21 U. S. C. § 841. Thus, the court must determine whether, under this statute, LSD carrier medium would be considered part of an LSD mixture or substance. To date, all circuit courts that have addressed the issue appear to be answering the question affirmatively." USSG, supra, at 599.
[7] Of course subsequent legislative history is generally not relevant and always must be used with care in interpreting enacted legislation. Compare Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U. S. 617, 628-629, n. 8 (1990), with id., at 631-632 (SCALIA, J., concurring in part). It can, however, provide evidence that an effect of a statute was simply overlooked.
"The inequity in these decisions is apparent in the following example. A single dose of LSD weighs approximately .05 mg. The sugar cube on which the dose may be dropped for purposes of ingestion and transportation, however, weighs approximately 2 grams. Under 21 U. S. C. § 841(b) a person distributing more than one gram of a `mixture or substance' containing LSD is punishable by a minimum sentence of 5 years and a maximum sentence of 40 years. A person distributing less than a gram of LSD, however, is subject only to a maximum sentence of 20 years. Thus a person distributing a [sic] 1,000 doses of LSD in liquid form is subject to no minimum penalty, while a person handing another person a single dose on a sugar cube is subject to the mandatory five year penalty." 135 Cong. Rec. 23518 (1989).
"That irrationality is magnified when we compare the sentences for people who sell other drugs prohibited by 21 U. S. C. § 841. Marshall, remember, sold fewer than 12,000 doses and was sentenced to twenty years. Twelve thousand doses sounds like a lot, but to receive a comparable sentence for selling heroin Marshall would have had to sell ten kilograms, which would yield between one and two million doses. Platt, Heroin Addiction: Theory, Research, and Treatment 50 (2d ed. 1986); cf. Diamorphine 63, 98 (Scott ed. 1988). To receive a comparable sentence for selling cocaine he would have had to sell fifty kilograms, which would yield anywhere from 325,000 to five million doses. Washton, Cocaine Addiction: Treatment, Recovery and Relapse Prevention 18 (1989); Cocaine Use in America: Epidemiologic and Clinical Perspectives 214 (Kozel & Adams, eds., National Institute on Drug Abuse Pamphlet No. 61, 1985)). While the corresponding weight is lower for crack  half a kilogram  this still translates into 50,000 doses." 908 F. 2d, at 1334.
[13] See, e. g., Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U. S. 395 (1990) (Congress must have intended supervised release to apply to those who committed drug offenses during the interim period after the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was enacted but before the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 became effective even though the latter, which defined the term, had not yet become effective); Sheridan v. United States, 487 U. S. 392, 403 (1988) ("If the Government has a duty to prevent a foreseeably dangerous individual from wandering about unattended, it would be odd to assume that Congress intended a breach of that duty to give rise to liability when the dangerous human instrument was merely negligent but not when he or she was malicious"); see also Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U. S. 504, 509 (1989) ("The Rule's plain language commands weighing of prejudice to a defendant in a civil trial as well as in a criminal trial. But that literal reading would compel an odd result in a case like this"); id., at 527 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment) ("We are confronted here with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result").
United States v. Narcisa Savinovich
United States v. Leo Klein
United States v. Ramon Haro Ramos
United States v. Brian Hoyt, AKA Brian Doyle
Learoy Edward Smith v. United States
United States v. Robert James Taylor
United States v. Kenneth J. Smith
United States v. Charles Lester Murphy
United States v. Kipp Michael McGeehan United States of America
United States v. Sidney Wayne Bishop v. Jerald James Ayers v. Jimmy Steven Jilek
United States v. Lorin Hugh Smith
United States v. Robert A. Rose
United States v. Carl Leslie Buggs
Cabell v. Markham
United States v. Charles H. Larsen and Faye L. Brennan
United States v. Tam Henry Holmes
United States v. Kevin Morris Elrod
United States v. Brian Michael Daly
Cases Citing This Case (50 of 755)
Barge v. PENN. BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
United States v. Anthony Maurice McDonald
United States v. Peter L. Collins
United States v. Greg McCauley
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1948 v. Brett Alan Brinton
United States v. William Wehr
United States v. Tushnet
United States v. Purvis Ray Cartwright
United States v. Jeremy D. Holmes
United States v. Michael Anthony Polk
United States v. Reed Raymond Prior
United States v. Robert E. Demkier
United States v. Kelly Michael Jerome
United States v. Joseph D. Andrews
United States v. Jerry Garcia
United States v. Christopher Tucker
United States v. Kevin D. Johnson
United States v. Theodore Muller
United States v. Fadi Alameh
United States v. Alan Quinones and Diego B. Rodriguez
United States v. Checora
James Kent Porter v. David Walters
United States v. Quentin J. Mueller
United States v. Larry D. Richards
United States v. Alejo Cruz-Mejias
United States v. Stephen Franklin Oglesby
United States v. Larry Edward Clawson
United States v. Kelly Ann Clark, Marrie Miller
David Allen Cox v. United States
United States v. James Rogers
State of Missouri v. Bruce Pierce
United States v. Sean Fitzgerald
Did you want to cite the CHAPMAN V. UNITED STATES court case? Copy and paste the below to your blog or Web page or create a forum post.