Opinion
No. 08-0670-cr.
December 5, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet C. Hall, Judge).
UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Michael R. Hasse, Hasse Associates, New London, CT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Patrick F. Caruso, Assistant United States Attorney (Nora R. Dannehy, United States Attorney, on the brief, William J. Nardini, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.
Present JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant Clifford Capehart appeals from a sentence entered on February 5, 2008 in the District Court, following Capehart's plea of guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 5 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and 846. Capehart was sentenced principally to a term of 156 months' imprisonment. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying factual and procedural history.
On appeal, Capehart challenges the statutory minimum penalties set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). He argues for the first time that "[t]he [m]andatory [m]inimum [s]entence for [c]rack [c]ocaine based on a 100:1[c]ocaine [p]owder to [c]ocaine [b]ase [r]atio is [a]rbitrary and [c]apricious and [w]ithout [r]ational [b]asis[,] in [v]iolation of the [d]ue [p]rocess and [e]qual [p]rotection [g]uarantees of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Appellant's Br. at 11. With respect to Capehart's due process challenge, his argument is foreclosed by our holding in United States v. Stevens, 19 F.3d 93, 97 (2d Cir. 1994). Moreover, Capehart acknowledges that, in the sentencing context, rational-basis and equal protection analysis duplicates due process analysis, see id. at 13 n. 2. His equal protection challenge thus likewise is without merit. As Capehart raises no additional arguments, his appeal fails and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.