United States of America v. Maurice Lewis

Honorable Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the*
Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-4221
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MAURICE LEWIS,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 01-cr-00231-1)
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 15, 2008
Before: AMBRO, FISHER, and MICHEL, Circuit Judges*
(filed April 18, 2008)
OPINION

-- 1 of 3 --

2
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Maurice Lewis pled guilty in 2003 to, among other crimes, conspiracy to distribute
more than five kilograms of cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime. At that time, Lewis had committed two prior drug felonies. As a
result, his crimes yielded a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment on the
conspiracy charge and of five years (to be served consecutively) on the firearm-
possession charge. His sentence also included ten years on supervised release, a fine of
$25,000 (the bottom of the federal Sentencing Guidelines range), and a special
assessment of $1,000.
On appeal, Lewis contends that his sentence was “harsh and excessive.” We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review for reasonableness. See United States v.
Wise, 515 F.3d 207, 218 (3d Cir. 2008).
Lewis makes two arguments. First, he argues that the District Court failed to
consider the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in violation of United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). This argument fails because the District Court had
no discretion to diverge from the statutory minimum sentences that applied. See 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Second, Lewis claims that
mandatory minimums themselves are unconstitutional because they limit trial courts’
discretion. In Harris v. United States, however, the Supreme Court rejected that very
theory. 536 U.S. 545, 567 (2002) (“Within the range authorized by the jury’s verdict,
however, the political system may channel judicial discretion . . . by requiring defendants

-- 2 of 3 --

3
to serve minimum terms after judges make certain factual findings.”).
For these reasons, we affirm the sentence imposed by the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --