The opinion
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
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 a pro se supplemental brief, and the
Government declined to file a brief. Finding no 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 does not violate either equal protection or due
process, and that § 841 has a rational basis. See 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. Kimbrough v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 573 (2007).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3