US v. Saadiq Tucker


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:02-cr-00205-BO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000015703].. [16-4324]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4324 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4324 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAADIQ TUCKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00205-BO-1) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Barbara D. Kocher, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4324 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Saadiq Tucker appeals his convictions and 84-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty without a plea agreement to armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2012); and using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012). Tucker asserts only that the five-year statutory mandatory minimum sentence imposed on his § 924(c) conviction generally violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, and specifically violates his Eighth Amendment rights. rightfully concedes, however, that expressly rejected by this Court. 461 F.3d 2006). 477, 494-95 (4th Cir. these arguments Counsel have been See United States v. Khan, 2006), as amended (Sept. 7, “[A] panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of this court. Only the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc can do that.” Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 271 n.2 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Given counsel’s concession and our holdings in Khan, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?