Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Larry Vivian Cooper, A/K/A Larry v. Cooper

870 F.2d 586

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.
April 19, 1989.
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.