Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
United States v. Larry Vivian Cooper, A/K/A Larry v. Cooper
United States v. Larry Vivian Cooper, A/K/A Larry v. Cooper, 870 F.2d 586 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1989-04-19
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM: Appellant is serving three concurrent federal prison sentences, having pled guilty to three counts alleging firearm offenses. In addition to imposing these prison sentences, the district court required appellant to pay a mandatory $50 assessment, as prescribed by 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(B) (1982), on each count. Appellant contends, in this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1982) proceeding, that the assessments are unconstitutional as applied to him, because he is indigent. We disagree, adopting the reasoning of the First and Second Circuits in United States v. Rivera-Velez, 839 F.2d 8 (1st Cir.1988); United States v.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Larry Vivian Cooper, A/K/A Larry v. Cooper. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 15 opinions
UNITED STATES v. COOPER,870 F.2d 586(11th Cir. 1989)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LARRY VIVIAN COOPER, A/K/A
LARRY V. COOPER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 87-5984.
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Dexter W. Lehtinen, U.S. Atty., Steven E. Chaykin, David O. Leiwant, Linda Collins Hertz, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before TJOFLAT, HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Appellant is serving three concurrent federal prison sentences, having pled guilty to three counts alleging firearm offenses. In addition to imposing these prison sentences, the district court required appellant to pay a mandatory $50 assessment, as prescribed by18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(B) (1982), on each count. Appellant contends, in this28 U.S.C. § 2255(1982) proceeding, that the assessments are unconstitutional as applied to him, because he is indigent. We disagree, adopting the reasoning of the First and Second Circuits inUnited States v. Rivera-Velez,839 F.2d 8(1st Cir. 1988);United States v. Pagan,785 F.2d 378(2d Cir.),cert. denied,479 U.S. 1017,107 S.Ct. 667,93 L.Ed.2d 719(1986).
[2] AFFIRMED.