US v. Quinton Spinks, No. 09-4808 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4808 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. QUINTON MICHAEL SPINKS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00350-TDS-2) Submitted: March 23, 2010 Decided: April 8, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Driver, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Quinton Michael Spinks pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute hydrochloride and violation 21 of 168 months in five grams fifty grams or U.S.C. § 846 (2006), prison. On more appeal, or more of cocaine and was Spinks of cocaine base, in sentenced to argues that the district court erred in using the applicable statutory mandatory minimum of Spinks s 240 months sentence assistance. as the starting reduction for point for providing determining substantial For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Spinks asserts that the district court improperly relied on both United States v. Pillow, 191 F.3d 403 (4th Cir. 1999), and United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009), to determine his starting sentence. According to Spinks, the decisions in those cases reflect this court s alleged continued treatment of the guidelines, or at least [USSG] § 5G1.1(b)(2), as mandatory, in direct contradiction to the holdings in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Spinks argues that the district court applied § 5G1.1(b) in a mandatory fashion, because the court explained it would start with the guideline sentence in this case, which is the mandatory minimum, and [the court] can depart under 5K1.1 to whatever degree the [c]ourt determines is appropriate. According to Spinks, [o]nce the government moved 2 for reduction of sentence . . ., the [district] [c]ourt was no longer obligated to sentence Defendant to the statutory minimum sentence of 240 months. To the extent that Spinks challenges this court s holding in Hood, it is well-settled that a panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of another panel; only the en banc court may overrule a prior panel decision. 94 F.3d 900, 905 (4th Cir. 1996). Jones v. Angelone, Moreover, Spinks s argument is contrary to the holding in Booker. In Booker, the Supreme Court struck the provision in the federal sentencing guidelines that made the Nonetheless, remedial guidelines the excision holding discretionary mandatory. that manner of the did that provision guidelines not statutory mandatory minimums. 543 U.S. alter must the be at and 249-50. Booker s applied in applicability a of As this court explained in Hood, in a post-Booker case, where a statutory mandatory minimum is applicable to authorized a to defendant, reduce 556 F.3d at 233. the [the] district statutory court minimum [is] not sentence. Only Congress could authorize a departure from the statutorily mandated minimum sentence, and it did so in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(e) for the limited purpose stated there to reflect a defendant s substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense. Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006)). 3 Here, reflect, that Spinks the § 841(b)(1)(A) does not statutory (2006) is argue, mandatory inapplicable nor does minimum to his in the record 21 U.S.C. conduct. The Government filed an Information regarding Spinks s prior felony conviction, minimum which made applicable Accordingly, the to because twenty-year Spinks s the statutory underlying guidelines range mandatory conviction. as initially calculated by the presentence report was less than the statutory mandatory minimum, the district court did not err in relying on the twenty-year point for statutory calculating resulting sentence. mandatory Spinks s minimum USSG as § 5K1.1 the starting departure and Accordingly, we affirm the district court s conviction and sentence. 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.
