UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4169
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRANDON EMANUEL BUTLER,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00074-TLW-1)
Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher R. Antley, DEVLIN & PARKINSON, P.A., Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Carrie A. Fisher, Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Emanuel Butler pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and to distribute a quantity of cocaine and five
grams or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). He was sentenced to 120
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that (1) the
district court exerted “impermissible pressure” on him at the
plea hearing, rendering his plea involuntary; and (2) the crack
to powder cocaine sentencing ratio violates the Equal Protection
and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. We
affirm.
Butler did not move in the district court to withdraw
his guilty plea; thus, any error in the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez,
277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error,
he “must show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain;
and (3) the error affects substantial rights.” United States v.
Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing
unpreserved Rule 11 error). “The decision to correct the error
lies within [this court’s] discretion, and [the court]
exercise[s] that discretion only if the error seriously affects
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
2
proceedings.” Id. at 343 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Butler bears the burden of showing plain error.
Butler claims that the district court’s manner of
questioning him at the plea hearing regarding the firearm
possession charge constituted impermissible pressure to plead
guilty. We have reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing
in light of this claim, and we conclude that the district
court’s questions did not amount to undue pressure on Butler to
plead guilty and that Butler’s plea was knowing and voluntary.
Butler’s constitutional challenge to the mandatory
minimum sentences for crack cocaine offenses under 21 U.S.C.
§ 841 (2006) also fails. This court has repeatedly rejected
claims that the sentencing disparity between crack and powder
cocaine 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). Furthermore, even after amendments to the crack
cocaine Sentencing Guidelines, “sentencing courts remain bound
by the mandatory minimum sentences prescribed [by statute].”
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 107 (2007). To the
extent that Butler seeks to have this court reconsider these
decisions, a panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of
3
a prior panel. United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th
Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm Butler’s convictions and
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
4