United States v. Darrell Wilson
This text of 572 F. App'x 245 (United States v. Darrell Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Darrell Lemane Wilson appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We have repeatedly rejected claims similar to those advanced by Wilson that the sentencing disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine violates the Equal Protection Clause. See, e.g., United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 245-46 (4th Cir.2011). The Supreme Court’s holding in Dorsey v. *246 United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2321, 183 L.Ed.2d 250 (2012), does not alter our analysis of Wilson’s claim. See United States v. Black, 737 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1902, 188 L.Ed.2d 932 (2014) (No. 13-9100). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Wilson, No. 4:08-cr-00041-JLK-1 (W.D.Va. Dec. 5, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
572 F. App'x 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-darrell-wilson-ca4-2014.