UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDNARD ANTOINE WALTERS, a/k/a Edward Antoine Walters,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00469-WO-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 13, 2010
Before DAVIS and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States
Attorney, Anna Mills Wagoner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ednard Antoine Walters pled guilty to one count of
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006), and one count of
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006), and
was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence for each
conviction. On appeal, Walters’ counsel filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there
were no meritorious arguments for appeal but raising for the
court’s consideration whether the disparity in the statutory
sentencing scheme regarding the treatment of those convicted of
crack cocaine offenses violates his right to due process when
compared to sentences for powder cocaine. Walters was given the
opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but declined.
The Government did not file a brief. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Our review of the plea agreement and the Rule 11
hearing leads us to conclude that Walters’ guilty pleas were
knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, we affirm his convictions.
We have also reviewed the presentence investigation report,
Walters’ objections, and the sentencing hearing and conclude
Walters’ sentence is reasonable. The district court had no
discretion to sentence Walters below the statutory minimum,
2
United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005),
and his sentence on both charges to the mandatory minimum is per
se reasonable. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 743 (2008).
This court has repeatedly rejected claims that the
sentencing disparity between powder cocaine and crack offenses
violates either equal protection or due process. See United
States v. Perkins, 108 F.3d 512, 518 (4th Cir. 1997); 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). Moreover,
while the Supreme Court held in Kimbrough v. United States, 552
U.S. 85 (2007), that district courts are permitted to disagree
with the policies underlying the Sentencing Guidelines, the
Supreme Court neither found § 841’s penalty provisions
unconstitutional nor overruled this court’s previous holdings
rejecting constitutional challenges.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the convictions and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Walters, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If he 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
3
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Walters. 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
4