United States v. Woods ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40035
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE DEAN WOODS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:95-CR-6-1
- - - - - - - - - -
June 25, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie Dean Woods appeals his sentences for possession of
crack cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. Woods contends that the disparity
between crack and powder cocaine guideline sentences violates the
Equal Protection Clause. He argues that Congress’s rejection of
the Sentencing Commission’s recommendation indicates a
discriminatory intent on the part of Congress and that the
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-40035
- 2 -
Commission’s report indicates that the disparity lacks a rational
basis. Woods also contends that he was subjected to selective
prosecution.
First, the crack/powder disparity does not violate the Equal
Protection Clause. United States v. Wilson, 77 F.3d 105, 112
(5th Cir. 1996). Second, Woods has failed to brief his
selective-prosecution contention. Brinkmann v. Dallas County
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Third,
Woods’s appeal is frivolous. We warn appointed counsel that he
has “no duty to bring frivolous appeals; the opposite is true.”
United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 115 S. Ct. 283 (1984).
APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.