United States v. Moore
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11206
7th Cir.2011Background
- Moore pled guilty to distributing more than 50 grams of crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841; he challenges the crack-powder disparity codified at § 841(b)(1)(A)-(iii) as unconstitutional.
- District court denied Moore's motion to dismiss the indictment on Fifth Amendment grounds, concluding the disparity was supported by precedent.
- Moore's accountability includes 253.2 grams of crack and 374.6 grams of powder cocaine; he pled under a conditional plea appealing the denial of the dismissal motion.
- He was sentenced to a ten-year mandatory minimum under § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) as it applied at the time.
- Moore abandons his Eighth Amendment challenge; the primary issues concern substantive due process and equal protection.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmatively reviews the district court’s constitutionality ruling de novo and applies rational-basis review to the disparity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 100-to-1 crack-powder disparity rationally related to a legitimate objective? | Moore: disparity rests on flawed evidence and is irrational. | Moore concedes prior precedents but argues current data undermine rational basis. | Yes; disparity survives rational-basis review. |
| Does disparate impact on African Americans show discriminatory intent requiring heightened scrutiny? | Moore: disparate impact proves intent. | Disparate impact alone is insufficient without showing intentional discrimination. | No; rational basis review applies; no demonstrated discriminatory intent. |
| Should the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 apply retroactively to Moore? | No; FSA not retroactive; applies to conduct after August 3, 2010. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (upholding rational-basis consideration of congressional sentencing decisions; evidence-based rationales for disparity exist)
- Lawrence v. United States, 951 F.2d 751 (7th Cir. 1991) (rational-basis review applied to crack-powder disparity)
- Chandler v. United States, 996 F.2d 917 (7th Cir. 1993) (equality theory under rational basis; discriminatory intent not shown)
- Feeney v. Mass., 442 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1979) (discriminatory intent required for heightened scrutiny; impact alone may be insufficient)
- United States v. Bell, 624 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2010) (FDA retroactivity/retroactive application of Fair Sentencing Act to pre-August 2010 conduct)