United States v. Joseph Anthony Glenn, A/K/A Jamaica Joe, 108 F.3d 1374, 4th Cir. (1997)
United States v. Joseph Anthony Glenn, A/K/A Jamaica Joe, 108 F.3d 1374, 4th Cir. (1997)
United States v. Joseph Anthony Glenn, A/K/A Jamaica Joe, 108 F.3d 1374, 4th Cir. (1997)
3d 1374
Glenn headed a group of Jamaicans who sold crack in North Charleston, South
Carolina, in 1993. The group included Glenn's two brothers, Everett and
Clinton Donaldson, as well as Francis March and Lionel Gordon. March and
his girlfriend lived in a duplex townhouse which was leased in her name.
However, Glenn gave March money to pay the rent and other bills and the
residence was used to store crack. Between December of 1993 and the end of
March 1994, the defendants sold crack on numerous occasions to a confidential
informant and an undercover officer. Video surveillance of March's residence
disclosed that the crack sold usually was retrieved from there.
On April 16, 1994, Glenn was arrested; his residence was searched under a
federal warrant. Officers found $22,000 in cash and three firearms. On the same
day, March's townhouse was searched; no drugs were recovered. The residence
was secured. On April 20, 1994, drug task force officers returned with a state
search warrant authorizing them to seize household items assumed to have been
purchased with drug proceeds. One of the officers moved a pile of linens which
had been pulled out of the linen closet at the top of the stairs during the first
search. Underneath the linens was a paper bag; when the officer picked it up,
crack and powder cocaine fell out of the bag.
Glenn's contention that the sentencing ratio between crack and powder cocaine
offenses violates equal protection, due process, or the Eighth Amendment is
without merit. See United States v. Fisher, 58 F.3d 96, 99-100 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, --- U.S. ---, 64 U.S.L.W. 3270 (U.S. Oct. 10, 1995) (No. 95-5923);
United States v. D'Anjou, 16 F.3d 604, 612-13 (4th Cir.1994); United States v.
Pinto, 905 F.2d 47 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Thomas, 900 F.2d 37 (4th
Cir.1990). The court's decision not to depart on this basis is not reviewable. See
United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir.1990).
6
The sentence is therefore affirmed. We dismiss that portion of the appeal which
contests the district court's decision not to depart. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART