US v. Saadiq Tucker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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