United States v. White ( 1997 )

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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-