Court Opinion

ID: 9413899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 23:28:50.033497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:46:47.159818
License: Public Domain

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the judgment and the opinion, except with respect to Part II. Lawrence argues that the district court’s disparate treatment of him and co-defendant Tolliver violated the Equal Protection Clause. I agree with the majority that this claim fails because Lawrence has not asserted that the court’s denial of his motion was motivated by animus or some impermissible criteria. I would decline to address whether the Government’s opposition to his motion violated the Equal Protection Clause. Lawrence has not raised this argument — his basic assertion that the Government’s change in position was “unjustified” is not tantamount to a constitutional challenge. Thus, I concur in the reasoning of Part II insofar as it addresses Lawrence’s Equal Protection claim against the district court.