Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. White, 96-2284 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-2284 Visitors: 69
Filed: May 19, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: ___________, Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.________________ ______________, Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Dismissal or Summary, Affirmance for appellee.e.g., United States v. Teague, 93 F.3d 81, 85 (2d Cir.
USCA1 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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer