Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04295/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04295-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darrick Lamorris McKenzie
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4295

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARRICK LAMORRIS MCKENZIE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:18-cr-00055-D-1)

Submitted: February 3, 2020 Decided: February 13, 2020

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4295 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/13/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Darrick Lamorris McKenzie pled guilty to 

two counts of carjacking, 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) (2018), brandishing a firearm in furtherance 

of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2018), and discharging a firearm in 

furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (2018). The district court 

sentenced McKenzie to 379 months of imprisonment, of which 17 years was based on 

McKenzie’s consecutive sentences for his § 924(c) convictions. On appeal, counsel for

McKenzie filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting 

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether his 17-year 

mandatory minimum sentence for his § 924(c) convictions violates equal protection, due 

process, and the Eighth Amendment. McKenzie has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The 

government elected not to file a brief and does not seek to enforce the appeal waiver in 

McKenzie’s plea agreement.*

Counsel’s challenge to McKenzie’s § 924(c) sentences is foreclosed. See United 

States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477, 495 (4th Cir. 2006), as amended (Sept. 7, 2006) (rejecting 

argument that “lengthy sentences imposed by the ‘count-stacking’ provisions of § 924(c) 

are so long as to constitute a violation of due process, equal protection, and the Eighth 

Amendment prohibition against Cruel and Unusual punishment”). Further, upon review, 

 * Because the government fails to assert the appeal waiver as a bar to this appeal, 

we may consider the issue raised by counsel and conduct an independent review of the 

record pursuant to Anders. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 

2007).

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4295 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/13/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

we conclude that the issues raised by McKenzie in his pro se supplemental brief are without 

merit. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and found no 

meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform McKenzie, in writing, of the right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If McKenzie 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 McKenzie. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4295 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/13/2020 Pg: 3 of 3