US v. Ricky Brown

Filing 920090720

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICKY BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00366-JAB-1)

Submitted:

July 10, 2009

Decided:

July 20, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Ricky Brown pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A) (2006). The district court

imposed the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months' imprisonment. Brown timely appealed. filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

Counsel

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues for appeal but challenging the constitutionality of § 841,

contending the sentencing disparity between powder cocaine and crack offenses violated Brown's right to equal protection and bears no rational relationship to any lawful government purpose. Brown has not filed to a pro file se a supplemental brief, no and the

Government

declined

brief.

Finding

reversible

error, we affirm. Brown's challenge to the constitutionality of 21

U.S.C. § 841 (2006) lacks merit.

This court has repeatedly held

that the sentencing disparity between cocaine powder and crack offenses process, does and not that violate § 841 has either a equal protection basis. See or due

rational

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); United States v. Thomas, 900 F.2d 37, 39 (4th Cir. 1990). Furthermore,

the 2007 amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines have no effect 2

on

the

constitutionality

or

applicability

of

the

statutory

mandatory minimum sentences for crack offenses. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 573 (2007).

Kimbrough v.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm the district court's judgment. This We court

requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of the right to petition review. the Supreme Court of the United States for further

If Brown 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 Brown. 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

3