US v. Michael Rosemond, No. 09-4635 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4635 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ANGELO ROSEMOND, Defendant - Appellant. No. 09-4782 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LENNY JOE ROSEMOND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:08-cr-00921-GRA-1; 6:08-cr-00921-GRA-2) Submitted: April 13, 2010 Decided: May 21, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, DAVIS, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Bradley Bennett, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina; Lora E. Collins, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellants. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael Angelo Rosemond pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006), and possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). in prison. possession He was sentenced to sixty months Lenny Joe Rosemond pled guilty to one count of with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). He was sentenced to seventy-seven months in prison, the low end of his advisory Guidelines range. The their sentences on the drug charges. The disparity Rosemonds between unconstitutional. argue cocaine now appeal We affirm. that base Rosemonds the and statutory cocaine sentencing powder is We repeatedly have rejected claims that the sentencing disparity between powder cocaine and crack offenses violates either equal protection or due process. United States v. Perkins, 108 F.3d 512, See, e.g., 518-19 & n.34 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 876-77 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). To the extent that the Rosemonds seek to have us reconsider these decisions, a panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of a prior panel. States v. Simms, 441 F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir. 2006). United The Rosemonds contention that our prior precedents are overruled by 3 Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), is incorrect. Id. at 107 (holding that sentencing courts are bound by the disparate statutory terms of imprisonment for powder cocaine and cocaine base, notwithstanding district court s discretion to depart from advisory Sentencing Guidelines ranges based on the disparity). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgments as to both Michael Rosemond and Lenny Rosemond. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
