Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN
Web Search
Yahoo!
Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Appellee, v. Jason D. Higgs, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. - 72 F.3d 69
Submitted Nov. 6, 1995.Decided Nov. 9, 1995
William L. Meiners, U.S. Attorney's Office, Kansas City, MO, for United States.
Albert A. Riederer, Wyrsch & Atwell, Kansas City, MO, Jason D. Higgs, El Reno, OK, Kathleen Kopach Woods, Kansas City, MO, for Jason D. Higgs.
Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Jason D. Higgs appeals the 228-month sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and use of a firearm in relation to the distribution of crack, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c). We affirm.
On appeal, Higgs contends the district court erred in not granting him a downward departure under U.S.S.G. Sec. 5K2.0. He points to the United States Sentencing Commission's February 1995 conclusion that the 100-to-1 ratio between penalties for crack and powder cocaine was not justified, arguing that the Commission's conclusion constitutes a mitigating factor that the Commission did not take into consideration when it formulated the existing Sentencing Guidelines. Higgs suggests that a proposed amendment to the Guidelines--eradicating the 100-to-1 ratio--which the Commission forwarded to Congress subsequent to his sentencing, also justifies a downward departure.
We may not review Higgs' claim that the district court erred in failing to depart downward. See United States v. McMurray, 34 F.3d 1405, 1414 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1164, 130 L.Ed.2d 1119 (1995); United States v. Johnson, 28 F.3d 1487, 1500 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 768, 130 L.Ed.2d 664 (1995). Notwithstanding that a "racially disparate impact [of the current sentencing scheme] may be a serious matter," only Congress or the Sentencing Commission, and not the courts, can effect a change in the Guidelines, and thus this is "not a basis upon which a court may rely to impose a sentence outside of the applicable Guidelines range." United States v. Maxwell, 25 F.3d 1389, 1401 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 610, 130 L.Ed.2d 519 (1994). We note that Congress recently rejected the Commission's proposed amendment.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri