Opinion ID: 734535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Edmonds

Text: 13 Edmonds first challenges the district court's determination of his criminal history. He contends that counting his prior convictions in Ohio for drug abuse and attempted drug abuse with the effect of increasing his current sentence unconstitutionally penalizes him for being a drug addict. He cited Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667 (1962), in which the Supreme Court struck down a state statute which made it a crime to be addicted to narcotics. The district court found that his criminal conduct--not his addiction--was punished by the Ohio statute 2 and denied his objection. We agree. Edmonds' Eighth Amendment argument fails because his federal sentence has not been increased because of his addiction but for unlawful conduct which could be committed by addicts and non-addicts alike. 14 Edmonds next argues that the district court failed to understand its authority to depart on the ground that his prior convictions for drug abuse overstated the seriousness of his past criminal conduct. He urges this Court to find that convictions for drug abuse may overstate a defendant's criminal history and to remand so the court may reconsider a departure on this ground. A sentencing court's decision not to depart because of lack of legal authority to depart is reviewed de novo. United States v. Hall, 977 F.2d 861, 863 (4th Cir.1992). While the guidelines do not allow a departure based solely on drug dependence, the district court recognized its authority to depart under USSG § 4A1.3, but chose not to exercise its discretion. Therefore, a remand is not necessary. 15 The district court found that Edmonds was not a leader in the offense and was motivated by his addiction, rather than by a desire to make money, but did not have a minor role because he participated in many aspects of the conspiracy, including traveling out of state with Latimer to purchase crack for Jerry Warren and selling crack. 16 The district court's finding is not clearly erroneous. A defendant who has sold drugs in a drug conspiracy does not have a minor role in the offense. United States v. Brooks, 957 F.2d 1138, 1149 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1228 (1992).