UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4169

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BRANDON EMANUEL BUTLER,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:09-cr-00074-TLW-1)

Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher R. Antley, DEVLIN & PARKINSON, P.A., Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United 

States Attorney, Carrie A. Fisher, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Emanuel Butler pled guilty pursuant to a 

written plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute and to distribute a quantity of cocaine and five

grams or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and 

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking 

crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). He was sentenced to 120 

months’ imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that (1) the 

district court exerted “impermissible pressure” on him at the 

plea hearing, rendering his plea involuntary; and (2) the crack 

to powder cocaine sentencing ratio violates the Equal Protection 

and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. We 

affirm.

Butler did not move in the district court to withdraw 

his guilty plea; thus, any error in the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 

hearing is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 

277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, 

he “must show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; 

and (3) the error affects substantial rights.” United States v. 

Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing 

unpreserved Rule 11 error). “The decision to correct the error 

lies within [this court’s] discretion, and [the court] 

exercise[s] that discretion only if the error seriously affects 

the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 
3

proceedings.” Id. at 343 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Butler bears the burden of showing plain error. 

Butler claims that the district court’s manner of 

questioning him at the plea hearing regarding the firearm 

possession charge constituted impermissible pressure to plead 

guilty. We have reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing 

in light of this claim, and we conclude that the district 

court’s questions did not amount to undue pressure on Butler to 

plead guilty and that Butler’s plea was knowing and voluntary.

Butler’s constitutional challenge to the mandatory 

minimum sentences for crack cocaine offenses under 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841 (2006) also fails. This court has repeatedly rejected 

claims that the sentencing disparity between crack and powder 

cocaine offenses violates either equal protection or due 

process. See United States v. Perkins, 108 F.3d 512, 518 (4th 

Cir. 1997); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 876-77 (4th 

Cir. 1996); United States v. Fisher, 58 F.3d 96, 99-100 (4th 

Cir. 1995). Furthermore, even after amendments to the crack 

cocaine Sentencing Guidelines, “sentencing courts remain bound 

by the mandatory minimum sentences prescribed [by statute].” 

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 107 (2007). To the 

extent that Butler seeks to have this court reconsider these 

decisions, a panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of 
4

a prior panel. United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th 

Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, we affirm Butler’s convictions and 

sentence. 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