US v. Roderick Ford
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODERICK LAMART FORD, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00870-RBH-4)
November 30, 2009
December 14, 2009
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis M. Hart, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Roderick Lamart Ford pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court denied Ford's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to the statutory mandatory minimum
sentence of 240 months. (West Supp. 2009). been allowed to
See 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 851
On appeal, Ford contends that he should have withdraw his plea on the ground that the
mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years violates his equal protection and due process rights. we affirm. Ford asserts that the statutory sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses is unconstitutional. Ford relies on the fact that courts are lowering, or even Finding no reversible error,
eliminating, the crack-to-powder-cocaine ratio in sentencing and argues that the statute also should treat the drugs the same so that there will be no disproportionate impact on
Because Ford does not argue on
appeal that the district court abused its discretion in applying the factors set forth in United States v. Thompson-Riviere, 561 F.3d 345, 348 (4th Cir. 2009), when ruling on his motion to withdraw, we conclude that he has forfeited appellate review of the court's application of those factors. 2 See Edwards v. City
of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting that issues not briefed or argued are deemed abandoned). Ford's sentencing argument is that the crack-to-powder-cocaine essentially is an
attack on his sentence, not on his guilty plea. have rejected cocaine claims and that crack the sentencing
We repeatedly between equal
protection or due process.
See, e.g., United States v. Perkins,
108 F.3d 512, 518-19 & n.34 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 876-77 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). To the
extent that Ford seeks to have us reconsider these decisions, a panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of a prior panel. 2006). Furthermore, guidelines have no the 2007 amendments on the to the sentencing or United States v. Simms, 441 F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir.
applicability of the statutory mandatory minimum sentences for crack offenses. Although Ford refers to the Supreme Court's
decisions in Spears v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 840 (2009), and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), to bolster his equal protection argument, this reference is misplaced. In
fact, the Supreme Court explicitly stated in Kimbrough that even after the 2007 amendments, "district courts are constrained by the mandatory minimum [sentences] Congress prescribed . . . ." 3
Id. at 108; see United States v. McClellon, 578 F.3d 846, 861 (8th Cir. 2009) (rejecting equal protection and due process
challenge to § 841 and stating that "while there is proposed legislation in Congress that may remedy the problems in
question, these actions remain mere proposals, and it is not the province of this court to anticipate and implement what may or may not occur in Congress"). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?