Opinion ID: 673830
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 and U.S.S.G. Sec. 2D1.1

Text: 14 The defendants challenge the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 5 and U.S.S.G. Sec. 2D1.1 6 as applied to them. Specifically, they argue that as applied, Sec. 841 and Sec. 2D1.1 disparately impact upon blacks in the prosecution and sentencing of crack distribution offenses. According to the defendants' argument, black offenders committing crack offenses are unfairly receiving substantially longer sentences than white offenders committing cocaine-powder offenses. 15 The defendants wisely do not contend that Congress or the Sentencing Commission had a discriminatory purpose at the time of the enactment of either Sec. 841 or Sec. 2D1.1. See, e.g., United States v. Lattimore, 974 F.2d 971, 975 (8th Cir.1992) (holding that no evidence supports a discriminatory motive in crafting the extended crack penalties), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1819, 123 L.Ed.2d 449 (1993). Instead, the defendants attempt to distinguish their cases from our prior decisions by arguing that Congress and the Sentencing Commission have since reaffirmed the statute and guidelines, thus evidencing a discriminatory purpose. But see United States v. Maxwell, 25 F.3d 1389, 1396-97 (8th Cir.1994) (rejecting an equal protection challenge to the crack penalties based upon their continuing enforcement); accord United States v. Willis, 967 F.2d 1220, 1225 (8th Cir.1992). 16 We cannot agree. The defendants rely upon, as proof of discrimination, statistics evidencing a disparate impact upon black offenders distributing crack cocaine as compared to white offenders distributing cocaine powder.  'Disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of ... invidious racial discrimination.'  Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265, 97 S.Ct. 555, 563, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977) (quoting Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 2049, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976)). Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Id. The defendants have offered no evidence that Congress or the Sentencing Commission have allowed either Sec. 841 or Sec. 2D1.1 to remain in effect to further a racially discriminatory purpose. As there were legitimate reasons for Congress to adopt the current crack penalties, see Lattimore, 974 F.2d at 975-76 (Congress was reacting to the dramatic appearance of crack on America's streets and the violent impact crack would have upon the drug trade in the United States), we will not infer a discriminatory purpose in the maintenance of these penalties. See Maxwell, 25 F.3d at 1396-97; see also McClesky v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 298-99 & n. 21, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 1771 & n. 21, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987) (holding that statistical evidence of the disparate impact of the death penalty on blacks is not sufficient to find a discriminatory purpose in the maintenance of the capital punishment statute). We therefore hold that Sec. 841 and Sec. 2D1.1 were not unconstitutionally applied to the defendants. 7