From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Kelly

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Mar 26, 2002
Case No. 99 CR 497 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 99 CR 497

March 26, 2002


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Defendant contends that 21 U.S.C. § 960 is unconstitutional because Congress intended the amounts of drugs to be a sentencing, rather than an elements, factor, and that cannot constitutionally stand in light ofApprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). But defendant has pled guilty and has thereby waived any attacks on the statute. Even if he had not waived any attack, his contention would fail. Although his position had support from a majority of a panel in United States v. Buckland, 259 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (dealing with a parallel statute, 21 U.S.C. § 841) the Ninth Circuit en banc reached a contrary conclusion in United States v. Buckland, 277 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2002). More to the point, the Seventh Circuit rejected defendant's argument inUnited States v. Brough, 243 F.3d 1078 (7th Cir. 2001), and this court is bound by that decision.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Kelly

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Mar 26, 2002
Case No. 99 CR 497 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2002)
Case details for

U.S. v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PAUL A. KELLY, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Date published: Mar 26, 2002

Citations

Case No. 99 CR 497 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2002)