UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5112
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEQUANDA JUMILL SAMUELS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00087-TDS-1)
Submitted: August 16, 2011 Decided: September 1, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew M. Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In March 2009, Dequanda Jumill Samuels pled guilty to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (“crack”), in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). The district court
sentenced Samuels in October 2010 to 250 months’ imprisonment.
Despite the waiver of the right to appeal included in
her plea agreement, Samuels seeks to appeal her sentence,
arguing that the district court erred in failing to apply the
Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”). The Government contends that
Samuels’ appeal should be dismissed because it is barred by the
appeal waiver. Upon review of the plea agreement and the
transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that
Samuels knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to appeal and
that the issue Samuels seeks to raise on appeal falls squarely
within the compass of her waiver of appellate rights. ∗
Accordingly, we dismiss Samuels’ appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
∗
Samuels attempts to escape the appeal waiver by claiming
that her sentence under pre-FSA law is unconstitutionally based
on race. We have rejected arguments 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, 518-19 & n.34 (4th Cir. 1997) (citing
cases); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 876-77 (4th Cir.
1996) (en banc); United States v. Fisher, 58 F.3d 96, 99-100
(4th Cir. 1995) (collecting cases).
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3