United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. James Arnet Churn, Defendant-appellant, 85 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Oregon state prisoner James Arnet Churn appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and affirm.

On appeal, Churn contends that the district court erred when it concluded that his conviction and sentence for distribution of cocaine base did not violate the equal protection clause due to disparities in sentencing between "crack cocaine" and "powder cocaine." Because we previously determined that Congress had a rational basis for treating crack cocaine more severely than powder cocaine, we reject Churn's contention. See United States v. Dumas, 64 F.3d 1427, 1430-31 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1341 (1996). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.