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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [16-4324]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
January 31, 2017
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
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)
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.
expressly rejected by this Court.
See United States v. Khan,
“[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
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.
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?