United States of America v. Dedric Louis Johnson, a/k/a Big Boy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4721
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEDRIC LOUIS JOHNSON, a/k/a Big Boy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (6:10-cr-00257-JMC-1)
Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: May 2, 2013
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Margaret A. Chamberlain, CHAMBERLAIN LAW FIRM, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dedric Louis Johnson was convicted by a jury in March
2011 of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more
than 50 grams of crack cocaine and marijuana and numerous
associated substantive counts. He was sentenced to a mandatory
term of life imprisonment based on two prior felony drug
convictions. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2006). Johnson
appealed. Prior to filing briefs, the parties filed a joint
motion to remand for resentencing in accordance with the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA). We granted the motion and
Johnson’s case was remanded to the district court. See United
States v. Johnson, No. 11-4777 (4th Cir. Order entered
October 20, 2011).
Johnson was resentenced in September 2012 to 120
months’ imprisonment. He timely appealed. Counsel has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred in
denying Johnson’s motion to dismiss the indictment. Although
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Johnson has not done so.
Prior to trial, Johnson raised a pro se motion to
dismiss the superseding indictment arguing that the statute
referenced in it applied only to heroin, not to crack cocaine or

-- 2 of 3 --

3
marijuana, with which he was charged. The district court
properly denied Johnson’s motion. Section 841 clearly includes
cocaine base (crack) and marijuana within its penalty
provisions. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b); see also 21 U.S.C. § 812
(2006) (including cocaine (in all its forms) and marijuana in
its list of “controlled substances”).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Johnson’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Johnson, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Johnson 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 Johnson. 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

-- 3 of 3 --