Opinion ID: 671214
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constitutional Challenges to the Statutes

Text: 17 Moore's first constitutional argument is that 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The portion of that statute that is challenged in this case is a procedural requirement that the United States Attorney must file an information in order for prior convictions to be considered under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b), the penalty section of Sec. 841. 18 Moore argues that Sec. 851 is unconstitutionally overbroad because it fails to distinguish between conduct that may be proscribed and conduct that must be permitted, and, apparently 2 , because Sec. 851 permits only federal offenses to be used for enhancement. This statute does not purport to proscribe individual conduct; neither does it establish what kinds of offenses may be used to enhance sentences. Section 851 merely establishes the procedures to be followed by the United States Attorney for using prior convictions to enhance sentences. The statute provides a mechanism for the defendant to challenge or deny allegations in the information which the United States Attorney must file. Moore does not challenge any of the allegations regarding his prior convictions and he offers no authority to support his argument of vagueness or overbreadth. This argument is meritless.
19 Moore next contends that 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 is unconstitutional as an ex post facto law, arguing that he never had any warning much less fair warning, that his conduct in 1990 would cause him to be sentenced to a mandatory life imprisonment sentence in 1992. This does not make the statute an ex post facto law. Section 841 was amended to require the mandatory minimum penalties in 1986. Moore's prior convictions occurred on April 13, 1990, and August 9, 1990. The amendments to the statute predate all of Moore's criminal conduct. Furthermore, Sec. 851 provides a mechanism for challenging the prior convictions. Moore chose not to utilize this opportunity.
20 Finally, Moore argues that his sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This argument has been considered and consistently rejected by the courts. Harmelin v. Michigan, 111 S.Ct. 2680 (1991); United States v. McCann, 835 F.2d 1184 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1026 (1988). The sentence imposed by the district court does not violate the Eighth Amendment.