Unpublished Disposition, 881 F.2d 1084 (9th Cir. 1989)
Annotate this CaseUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Thomas F. BRANAGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 88-1294.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 11, 1989.Decided July 31, 1989.
William A. Ingram, Chief Judge Presiding.
Before TANG, NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
Thomas F. Branagan appeals his 10-year sentence, without possibility of probation or parole, following his conviction for distribution of approximately 20 kilograms of cocaine. He contends that the district court erred in determining that the sentencing provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), require a mandatory minimum 10-year sentence for the sale of more than five kilograms of cocaine. Branagan also argues that the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of section 841(b) (1) (A) (ii) violate the eighth amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The judgment is affirmed.
The district court properly determined that section 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) requires a mandatory minimum 10-year sentence for those convicted of selling five kilograms or more of cocaine. See United States v. Hoyt, No. 87-1224, slip op. at 6358-61 (9th Cir. June 15, 1989). In addition, mandatory minimum sentences imposed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (A) do not violate the eighth amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. United States v. Kinsey, 843 F.2d 383, 392-93 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 99 (1988); Hoyt, No. 87-1224, slip op. at 6362-65.1
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
Branagan has requested oral argument. Nevertheless, this case is suitable for submission without oral argument because the legal standard is established and the result is clear. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Branagan's request is therefore denied
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
