United States v. White ( 1997 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-