US v. Ednard Walters

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00469-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998444203] [10-4041]

US v. Ednard Walters

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4041 Document: 22

Date Filed: 10/13/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4041 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDNARD ANTOINE WALTERS, a/k/a Edward Antoine Walters, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00469-WO-1) Submitted: September 30, 2010 WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 13, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior

Before DAVIS and Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Anna Mills Wagoner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4041 Document: 22

Date Filed: 10/13/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Ednard Antoine Walters pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006), and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006), and was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence for each

conviction.

On appeal, Walters' counsel filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there were no meritorious arguments for appeal but raising for the court's consideration whether the disparity in the statutory

sentencing scheme regarding the treatment of those convicted of crack cocaine offenses violates his right to due process when compared to sentences for powder cocaine. Walters was given the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but declined. The Government did not file a brief. affirm. Our review of the plea agreement and the Rule 11 Finding no error, we

hearing leads us to conclude that Walters' guilty pleas were knowing and voluntary. We have also reviewed Accordingly, we affirm his convictions. the the presentence sentencing The below investigation hearing district the and court report, conclude had no

Walters' Walters'

objections, sentence to is

and

reasonable. Walters 2

discretion

sentence

statutory

minimum,

Case: 10-4041 Document: 22

Date Filed: 10/13/2010

Page: 3

United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005), and his sentence on both charges to the mandatory minimum is per se reasonable. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 743 (2008). This court has repeatedly rejected claims that the

sentencing 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). Moreover,

while the Supreme Court held in Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), that district courts are permitted to disagree with the policies Court underlying found the § this Sentencing 841's Guidelines, the

Supreme

neither nor

penalty

provisions holdings

unconstitutional

overruled

court's

previous

rejecting constitutional challenges. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the convictions and sentence. This court

requires that counsel inform Walters, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If he requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 3 leave to withdraw from

Case: 10-4041 Document: 22

Date Filed: 10/13/2010

Page: 4

representation.

Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because

was served on Walters.

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. AFFIRMED

4