US v. Leroy Jenkins

Filing 920090223

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4567 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEROY ANTWAN JENKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00739-DCN-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leroy Antwan Jenkins appeals from his convictions after pleading guilty and sentence imposed for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that after a review of the record, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Jenkins has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, Jenkins' Anders and the Government declined to file a brief. brief argues that the amended crack to powder cocaine ratio is unconstitutional. Jenkins' guilty Jenkins' plea was Anders brief and also concludes that no knowing voluntary. Finding error, we affirm. In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we review the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). United States v. Martinez, 277 A review of the transcript of Jenkins' guilty plea hearing reveals that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Jenkins' plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, with full knowledge of the consequences attendant to his guilty plea. therefore find no plain error. We 2 Jenkins' challenge to the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. 841 (2006) is without merit. rejected claims that the sentencing This court has repeatedly disparity between powder cocaine and crack offenses violates either equal protection or due process. See United States v. Perkins, 108 F.3d 512, 518 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 876-77 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Fisher, 58 F.3d 96, 99-100 (4th Cir. 1995). To the extent that Jenkins seeks to have this court reconsider these decisions, a panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of a prior panel. 441 F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir. 2006). to the Sentencing or Guidelines applicability crack with States, United States v. Simms, Further, the 2007 amendments have of no the effect on the constitutionality minimum bolster Kimbrough sentences his v. statutory Jenkins' Court's 558, 575 mandatory to in is for offenses. the 128 Supreme S. Ct. attempt decision (2007), argument United misplaced because its holding that district courts may consider the crack/cocaine from sentencing the ratio as is a possible unrelated basis to for the variance Guidelines constitutionality of the sentencing disparity. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Jenkins' convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Jenkins, in writing, of the 3 right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jenkins requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jenkins. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional would process. AFFIRMED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?