United States v. Ward ( 1996 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                    No. 95-5623
    CHARLES QUINCY WARD,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
    Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge.
    (CR-94-631)
    Submitted: July 25, 1996
    Decided: August 15, 1996
    Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
    and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    I. S. Leevy Johnson, JOHNSON, TOAL & BATTISTE, P.A., Colum-
    bia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Margaret B. Seymour, United
    States Attorney, Marvin J. Caughman, Assistant United States Attor-
    ney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Quincy Ward appeals the 78-month sentence he received
    after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess crack cocaine with
    intent to distribute, 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 846
     (West Supp. 1996). He con-
    tends that the district court erred in denying him a downward depar-
    ture on equal protection grounds. We affirm.
    Ward first argues that the district court erred in relying on our pre-
    cedents to find that the 100-to-1 ratio prescribed in the sentencing
    guidelines* for crack and powder cocaine offenses does not violate
    equal protection. Ward invites us to reconsider our prior rulings,
    alleging that the discriminatory impact of the ratio was purposeful.
    We find that his allegation is unsupported and that the district court's
    ruling was correct. See, e.g., United States v. Wallace, 
    22 F.3d 84
    , 88
    (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 
    63 U.S.L.W. 3266
     (U.S. Oct.
    3, 1994) (No. 94-5653); United States v. D'Anjou , 
    16 F.3d 604
    , 612
    (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 
    62 U.S.L.W. 3861
     (U.S. June
    27, 1994) (No. 93-9131); United States v. Thomas , 
    900 F.2d 37
    , 39-
    40 (4th Cir. 1990)
    Second, Ward maintains that the district court had discretion to
    depart under USSG § 5K2.0, p.s., and erred in not doing so. In this
    case, the district court clearly wished to impose a lower sentence than
    that required under the guidelines, but found that a departure was pre-
    cluded by United States v. Bynum, 
    3 F.3d 769
    , 774-75 (4th Cir. 1993),
    cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 
    62 U.S.L.W. 3552
     (U.S. Feb. 22, 1994)
    (No. 93-7295). Because the district court made a legal decision that
    it lacked authority to depart rather than exercising its discretion, we
    review its decision de novo. United States v. Hall, 
    977 F.2d 861
    , 863
    _________________________________________________________________
    *United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1
    (Nov. 1994); see also 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 841
    (b) (West 1981 & Supp. 1996).
    2
    (4th Cir. 1992). The court's decision was correct. Moreover, this
    panel cannot overrule the decision of a prior panel in this Circuit.
    Brubaker v. Richmond, 
    943 F.2d 1363
    , 1381-82 (4th Cir. 1991).
    We therefore affirm the sentence imposed. We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
    ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3