eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 1998-10

United States v. Moore ( 1998 )


Menu:
 
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-4331
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DEMAR LAMONT MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-
95-170)
Submitted:   September 22, 1998           Decided:   October 19, 1998
Before WIDENER and NEIMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James K. Bredar, Federal Public Defender, Beth Mina Farber, Chief
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Brent J.
Gurney, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Demar Lamont Moore was convicted of possessing crack cocaine
with       the   intent   to   distribute,   in   violation   of
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) (1994). The district court sentenced him to a 235-month
term of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release.
On appeal, Moore claims that Congress violated the equal protection
component of the Due Process Clause when it rejected an amendment
proposed by the United States Sentencing Commission which would
have eliminated the disparity under the sentencing guidelines
between offenses involving crack cocaine and cocaine powder. See
Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Amendment, Disapproval Act, Pub. L.
No. 104-38,
    109 Stat. 334
    , 334-35 (1995) (rejecting the Sentencing
Commission’s proposed changes for reduction of the sentencing dis-
parity for crack and powder cocaine offenses). Finding no error, we
affirm.
Moore contends that Congress’s rejection of the amendment was
racially discriminatory. While acknowledging this court’s prior
decisions holding that the disparity in sentencing between cocaine
base and powder cocaine offenses is constitutionally permissible,*
Moore argues that this court has never addressed the specific is-
*
See United States v. Perkins,
    108 F.3d 512
    , 518 (4th Cir.
1997); United States v. Hayden,
    85 F.3d 153
    , 157-58 (4th Cir.
1996); United States v. Fisher,
    58 F.3d 96
    , 98-100 (4th Cir. 1995);
United States v. D’Anjou,
    16 F.3d 604
    , 612 (4th Cir. 1994); United
States v. Bynum,
    3 F.3d 769
    , 774-75 (4th Cir. 1993); United States
v. Thomas,
    900 F.2d 37
    , 38-40 (4th Cir. 1990).
2
sues raised in this appeal regarding the equal protection violation
occasioned by Congress’s rejection of the Commission’s proposed
amendment. We disagree and decline to revisit our prior decisions.
Accordingly, we affirm Moore’s sentence. 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