# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 20, 2009 · 337 F. App'x 299

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1029530

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricky BROWN, Defendant—Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 20, 2009
- **Citations:** 337 F. App'x 299
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, King, Shedd
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1029530

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1029530. Public record. Not legal advice.