United States v. Wilson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4822
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADELL ANDREW WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00399-NCT-2)
Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John J. Korzen, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael
Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adell Andrew Wilson appeals from his conviction and
resulting 240-month sentence, entered pursuant to his guilty
plea to distribution of cocaine base. On appeal, Wilson’s
counsel has filed an Anders * brief, noting that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11 hearing was properly conducted and whether the
statutory mandatory minimum sentence imposed in this case was
unconstitutional. Although informed of his right to do so,
Wilson has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. After a
thorough review of the record, we affirm.
As counsel concedes, the Rule 11 hearing was thorough
and complete, counsel for both parties agreed on a modification
to the plea agreement, and Wilson pled guilty knowingly and
voluntarily. Turning to the sentence challenge, Wilson asserts
that the statutory mandatory minimum resulted in a sentence that
was not individualized, that violated the separation of powers
doctrine, and that was based on an unconstitutional disparity
between crack and powder cocaine. We conclude that Wilson’s
claims are meritless and that the district court properly
considered itself constrained by the applicable statutory
minimum sentence. See Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453,
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
467 (1991) (noting that determinate sentences are not
unconstitutional); United States v. Gonzalez-Ramirez, 561 F.3d
22, 30 (1st Cir. 2009) (deciding that prosecutor’s discretion to
seek enhanced minimum sentence does not violate separation of
powers doctrine), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Sept. 29, 2009)
(No. 09-6745); United States v. Perkins, 108 F.3d 512, 518 (4th
Cir. 1997) (holding that sentencing disparity between crack and
powder cocaine is constitutional).
In accordance with Anders, we examined the entire
record in this case, and we found no meritorious issues for
review. Accordingly, we affirm Wilson’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client,
in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If the client requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3