United States v. Thomas Lyle Hayden, 898 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Thomas Lyle Hayden, 898 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Cedric Jones, 541 F. App'x 468 (5th Cir. 2013)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 967 finding that career offender provisions do not violate Equal Protection Clause4 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • United States v. Cedric Jones, 541 F. App'x 468 (5th Cir. 2013).unpublished
    See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 , 129 S.Ct. 1423 , 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); Sonnier v. Quarterman, 476 F.3d 349, 367 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Hayden, 898 F.2d 966, 967 (5th Cir.1990).
  • United States v. Steven Michael Johns, 984 F.2d 1162 (11th Cir. 1993).published
    See, e.g., United States v. John, 936 F.2d 764 , 766 n. 2 (3d Cir.1991) (due process); United States v. Hayden, 898 F.2d 966, 967 (5th Cir.1990) (equal protection); United States v. Baker, 850 F.2d 1365, 1372 (9th Cir.1988) (equal protecti…
  • United States v. Ronnie Lee Stewart & Rodney Fred Delegal, 951 F.2d 351 (6th Cir. 1992).unpublished
    (finding that career offender provisions do not violate Equal Protection Clause)
  • United States v. Anthony Baker, A/K/A Clayton Perkins, 953 F.2d 639 (4th Cir. 1992).unpublished
    (The imposition of greater punishment based on the nature of the crime and on the recidivist nature of the perpetrator is recognized as a legitimate sentencing principle.)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Thomas Lyle HAYDEN, Defendant-Appellant
89-2997.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 19, 1990.
Published opinion
898 F.2d 966
1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 25884
1990 WL 39267
Ronald D. Karehmer, Corpus Christi, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant., Paula C. Offenhauser, Asst. U.S. Atty., Henry K. Oncken, U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Reavley, King, Johnson.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 79%
Citer courts: M.D. North Carolina (1)
PER CURIAM:

Thomas Lyle Hayden appeals from the imposition of his sentence pursuant to the application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Hayden was convicted of various narcotics offenses. Because of Hayden’s prior felony convictions of the same nature, Hayden is classified as a career offender under Section 4B1.1 of the Guidelines. This translates into a criminal history category of VI and an offense level of 34. Absent the classification as a career offender, Hayden would be subject to an offense level of 26 and a criminal history category of V.

In this appeal, Hayden argues that the classification of a defendant as a “career offender” under 28 U.S.C. § 994(h) and Sentencing Guideline 4B1.1 is unconstitutional as arbitrary, capricious and viola-tive of Hayden’s due process and equal protection rights. We do not agree.

The imposition of greater punishment based on the nature of the crime and on the recidivist nature of the perpetrator is recognized as a legitimate sentencing principle. See, e.g., Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). Section 4B1.1 implements Congress’ directive that the guidelines base a defendant’s sentence upon consideration of the offense committed and the defendant’s criminal history. See United States v. White, 869 F.2d 822 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 3172, 104 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1989).

We perceive no due process or equal protection violation in the instant case. The sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.