Opinion ID: 151916
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Crack Cocaine/Powder Cocaine Disparity

Text: Campbell next argues that the 100-to-1 crack/powder cocaine ratio incorporated into § 841(b) disproportionately impacts African-Americans and is unconstitutional. Campbell acknowledges that our precedents have addressed and rejected this argument but raises it for purposes of issue preservation. The question of whether a statute is constitutional is a question of law and must be reviewed de novo. United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 658 (8th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations and citation omitted). District courts lack the authority to reduce sentences below congressionally-mandated statutory minimums. Further, district courts may not consider the powder-to-base ratio disparity when deviating from statutory minimums on consideration of substantial assistance motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). United -4- States v. Watts, 553 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Finally, we have held that § 841(b) does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. United States v. McClellon, 578 F.3d 846, 861 (8th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Mendoza, 876 F.2d 639, 641 (8th Cir. 1989) (finding that § 841(b)(1)'s mandatory minimum does not violate due process, or equal protection rights, or constitute cruel and unusual punishment). Accordingly, Campbell's challenge to § 841(b) fails.