UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4200
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTOINE DEVARUS UPCHURCH,
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-00399-JAB-1)
Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Terry Michael Meinecke, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antoine Devarus Upchurch appeals from his conviction
and 120-month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to
distribution of crack cocaine. Counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning whether the statutory sentencing scheme for crack
cocaine offenses creates an unconstitutional disparity between
sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses or
subjects African Americans to harsher punishment in violation of
the Equal Protection Clause. Although informed of his right to
do so, Upchurch has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
As Upchurch recognizes, we have repeatedly rejected
claims that the statutory sentencing disparity between powder
cocaine and crack cocaine offenses violates the Equal Protection
Clause. See United States v. Perkins, 108 F.3d 512, 518 (4th
Cir. 1997); United States v. Fisher, 58 F.3d 96, 99-100 (4th
Cir. 1995). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. We therefore affirm Upchurch’s conviction and
sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If the client requests that a
2
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 the client. 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