both due process and equal protection challenges to federal statute); Agilar, 779 F.2d at 125-26 (finding “[i]t is surely rational to achieve [the statute’s] goal by increasing penalties for those who sell drugs near schools” and rejecting due process and equal protection challenges); Dixon, 619 F.Supp. at 1400-01 (rejecting due process and equal protection challenges to federal statute); Nieves, 608 F.Supp. at 1149-51 (noting that “[i]t is difficult to imagine a more rational way of keeping drug traffickers out of areas where children are more likely to come into contact with them than to subject them to a risk of stiffer penalties for doing business near school property,” and rejecting due process and equal protection arguments); State v. Burch, 545 So.2d 279, 284 (Fla.App.1989) (<HOLDING>); State v. Rodriguez, 225 N.J.Super. 466, 542
holding that  707b does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the fourteenth and fifth amendments of the united states constitution and rejecting debtors voidforvagueness argument holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that florida statute did not constitute an unreasonable exercise of the states police power and rejecting due process and equal protection challenges holding that judicial enforcement of arbitration award did not constitute state action triggering due process protection holding that the due process and equal protection clauses do not trigger tucker act jurisdiction in the courts