UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-4045

RAYMOND LEE PRAYEAR, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-94-102)

Submitted: August 22, 1996

Decided: September 12, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Howard G. Higgins, Jr., Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant.
William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Sam G. Nazzaro, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Lee Prayear, Jr., pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
crack cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C.A.§ 846 (West
Supp. 1996). He was sentenced to a term of 151 months imprison-
ment. He appeals his sentence on two grounds which were not raised
in the district court and are without merit. Finding no plain error, we
affirm his sentence.

Prayear first contends that his sentence is disproportionate to the
gravity of his offense and thus violates the Eighth Amendment.
Because his sentence is less than life without parole, an extended pro-
portionality review is not necessary. United States v. Thomas, 900
F.2d 37, 39 (4th Cir. 1990). We have no difficulty in finding that Pra-
year's sentence is not disproportionate to his offense.

Next, Prayear argues that the 100-to-1 statutory sentencing ratio for
cocaine and crack offenses violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fifth Amendment because of its disparate impact on black defendants.
This claim has been considered and rejected before. United States v.
Fisher, 58 F.3d 96, 99 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 64
U.S.L.W. 3270 (U.S. Oct. 10, 1995) (No. 95-5923).

The sentence is accordingly affirmed. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2
