UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT WILFORD ROBINSON AND JAMES IVEY WHEELER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Mandatory minimum punishments applicable to substantive drug offenses do not automatically apply to conspiracies to commit those offenses under pre-amendment law.
Defendants were convicted of conspiracy to import and possess with intent to distribute marijuana. The district court applied mandatory minimum senten…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantive Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The sole issue on appeal is whether the mandatory minimum punishments applicable to the offenses of importation of marijuana, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 952(a) & 960, and possession with intent to distribute, 21 U.S. C.A. § 841(a)(1) & (b), also apply to conspiracies to commit those offenses, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 846 & 963.
Defendants Robert Wilford Robinson and James Ivey Wheeler appeal their sentences for September 1986 through January 1987 conspiracy to import and to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1,000 pounds of marijuana. The district court, holding that the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions applied, sentenced Robinson to concurrent terms of 20 years imprisonment without parole and Wheeler to concurrent 15-year terms without parole.
Our recent holding in United States v. Rush, 874 F. 2d 1513 (11th Cir.1989), is dis-positive of this question. Like the defendants in Rush, Robinson and Wheeler were convicted under conspiracy provisions existing before the November 18, 1988 amendment made the punishment for drug conspiracies the same as for the offenses which were the objects of the conspiracies. Prior to the 1988 amendment, a drug conspiracy had the same statutory maximum but not the mandatory minimum punishment applicable to the offense which was the conspiratorial objective. Resentencing is necessary because the district court erroneously believed that mandatory minimums applied here. See United States v. Rush, at 1513-15.
VACATED and REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Sweeney v. Fla. Power & Light Co., Inc., 725 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…(11th Cir.1985), forwarded the complaint to the Florida agen [*381] cy on April 9, 1996. McKelvy, 864 F. 2d at 451 (“when FCHR received McKelvy’s charge from EEOC, he ... commenced state proceedings”); see Griffin v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., 883 F. 2d 940 (11th Cir.1989). The present action was filed on September 16, 1996, twenty days less than 180 days thereafter. We are compelled to agree this prematurity was fatal. Under section 760.11(4)(a), an aggrieved person may not bring a civil action unles…
-
United States v. Terryl Geer, 923 F.2d 892 (1st Cir. 1991)…ction 846 that was in force in 1986 and 1987, according to which “a drug conspiracy had the same statutory maximum but not the mandatory minimum punishment applicable to the offense which was the conspiratorial objective.” United States v. Robinson, 883 F. 2d 940 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam). See also United States v. Brown, 887 F. 2d 537, 541 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Campbell, 704 F.Supp. 661, 663-65 (E.D.Va.1989). The district court, therefore, was not required to sentence Geer to ten years in pris…
-
Maynard v. Pneumatic Prods. Corp., 256 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2001)…s charge, his fifing with the EEOC was a sufficient exhaustion of his state law remedies.”). The agreement’s language also would determine whether the FCHR constructively terminated Maynard’s fifing. See, e.g., Griffin v. Air Prod. & Chems., Inc., 883 F. 2d 940, 943 (11th Cir.1989) (examining an earlier version of the EEOC-FCHR worksharing agreement, and determining that “the EEOC-FCHR worksharing agreement created an instantaneous ‘constructive termination’ ” of the FCHR proceedings); Puryear, 214 F. 3d a…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Rush, 874 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1989)