United States v. White

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: May 19, 1997
• Docket: 96-2284
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 96-2284

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

MARK WHITE,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

David H. Bownes on brief for appellant.

Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, and Jean B. Weld,

Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Dismissal or Summary Affirmance for appellee.

May 12, 1997

Per Curiam. Defendant appeals from his conviction and

sentence on the sole ground that the disparate penalties for

crack and powder cocaine violate the Equal Protection Clause

of the United States Constitution. We already have rejected

the substance of defendant's argument. See United States v.

Andrade, 94 F.3d 9, 14-15 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v.

Singleterry, 29 F.3d 733, 739-41 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,

115 S.Ct. 647 (1994). And we decline defendant's suggestion

that we should revisit and depart from that precedent. We

note that the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in cases

from other circuits raising the same or similar issues. See,

e.g., United States v. Teague, 93 F.3d 81, 85 (2d Cir. 1996),

cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 708 (1997); United States v. Burgos,

94 F.3d 849, 877 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied,

117 S.Ct. 1087 (1997); United States v. Edwards, 98 F.3d

1364, 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 1997 WL 134423

(April 14, 1997).

The government's request that we treat its motion for

summary disposition as a brief is granted; the motion for

summary disposition is granted as well.

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.

-2-