U.S.A v. Harrington
Decision Date | 23 August 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 10-1827.,10-1827. |
Citation | 617 F.3d 1063 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Kurt HARRINGTON, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Clifford R. Cronk, AUSA, Davenport, IA, for Appellee.
Frank Santiago, Iowa City, IA, for Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Kurt Harrington was convicted in 2009 of seven drug offenses, including conspiring to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute heroin and at least 50 grams of cocaine base, resulting in death (Count 1); and distributing heroin, resulting in death (Count 7). Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 851, the government filed notice that Harrington was subject to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment by reason of a 2002 felony drug conviction. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) ( ). The district court 1 sentenced Harrington to concurrent terms of life in prison on Counts 1 and 7, and 360 months on each of the five remaining counts. Harrington appeals, arguing that (1) the court violated the Sixth Amendment by enhancing his penalty based on his 2002 felony conviction, because the prior-conviction exception in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is “founded on bad law” and may soon be overruled; (2) the enhanced penalty is similar to the enhancement improperly sought by the government in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), because it required the court to determine facts about Harrington's prior offense, and not just the existence of his conviction; and (3) the mandatory life sentence prescribed by section 841 conflicts with the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and thus it is unreasonable under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The government moves for summary affirmance and to stay briefing. For the following reasons, we reject Harrington's arguments and affirm.
First Apprendi is inapplicable because Harrington faced a statutory maximum sentence of life in prison regardless of his prior felony conviction. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348 ( ); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) ( ); see also United States v. McIntosh, 236 F.3d 968, 975 (8th Cir.2001) ( ).
Second, we see no violation of Shepard here. Although we have previously discussed the principles of that case in connection with §§ 841 and 851 see United States v. Ramon-Rodriguez, 492 F.3d 930, 940 (8th Cir.2007), we have not held that it applies in this context. Cf. United States v. Marsh, 561 F.3d 81, 87 (1st Cir.2009) (). Even assuming for the sake of argument that Shepard applied, Harrington's contention would fail, for he acknowledges in his brief that the sentencing transcript from his prior conviction, which was admitted at the continued sentencing hearing, showed that he was convicted of a drug felony. See 544 U.S. at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Umanzor v. United States, C 11-4024- MWB
... ... Ct. 2052. Harrington v. Richter, ____ U.S. ____, ____, 131 S. Ct. 770, 787 (2011); Premo v. Moore, _ U.S. _, 131 S. Ct. 733, 739 (2011) (quoting Richter). There are ... ...
-
Harrington v. Ormond, 17-6229
...terms of life in prison on Counts 1 and 7, and 360 months on each of the five remaining counts. United States v. Harrington , 617 F.3d 1063, 1064 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (footnote omitted).In 2014, the Supreme Court decided Burrage , which held that "at least where use of the drug dist......
-
United States v. Harrington
...triggered in part by the special guilty verdict on the resulting-in-death elements of those counts. See United States v. Harrington , 617 F.3d 1063, 1064 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). On direct appeal, we affirmed Harrington's sentence. See id. at 1064-65.In 2014, the Supreme Court held tha......
-
Broadnax v. United States
...not restrict the procedure for the Court's determination of a prior conviction under Section 851."); see also United States v. Harrington, 617 F.3d 1063, 1065 (8th Cir. 2010) ("Although we have previously discussed the principles of [Shepard] in connection with §§ 841 and 851, see United St......