Opinion of the Court — Roe v. United States

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: March 7, 2002
Case: Roe v. United States
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

Order In this collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , Michael Roe contends that the 10-year sentence he received—the mandatory minimum sentence for a person with Roe’s record of convictions who conspires to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(B)—is constitutionally invalid given the principles articulated in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Arguments that Apprendi applies to mandatory minimum sentences have been unpersuasive in this circuit. See, e.g. United States v. Hill, 252 F.3d 919, 921 (7th Cir.2001) (collecting other cases). We have thought it sufficient that a sentence be within a statutory maximum given facts found (or necessarily implied) by the jury’s verdict. That verdict exposed Roe to a 20-year term, the lowest statutory cap for a person convicted of conspiring to distribute any quantity of cocaine. There is, however, a division of authority on the subject, and the conflict may be resolved *314 this spring by Harris v. United States, cert. granted, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 663 , 151 L.Ed.2d 578 (2001) (to be argued Mar. 25, 2002). It is unnecessary for us to hold these proceedings pending t…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.