United States v. Curtis Fitzgerald Harding

Bad Law
92 Daily Journal DAR 10758·971 F.2d 410·1992 WL 181083·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 17555·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6731
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 3, 199291-50423California1,979 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiggins, J.

OVERVIEW

Curtis Fitzgerald Harding appeals his sentence of 120 months under the Sentencing Guidelines for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base. He argues that the distinction made in the United States Sentencing Guidelines between cocaine base (crack) and cocaine hydrochloride (powder cocaine) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The District Court had jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 . This court has jurisdiction over the timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On February 11, 1991, Harding pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 89.1 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). In return for his plea, the government agreed to dismiss indictments for the possession with intent to distribute 166 grams of powder cocaine and failure to appear. On February 22, 1991, Harding filed his sentencing memorandum, challenging the sentencing distinction between crack and powder cocaine in 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(l)(A)(iii) as violative of the Equal Protection Clause. The district court held a hearing on the constitutionality of this distinction in the Sentencing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.