United States v. Ray , 209 F. App'x 329 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-4569
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ROBERT LEE RAY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:05-cr-00217-BO)
    Submitted:   November 20, 2006         Decided:     December 13, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
    Hayes, Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Lee Ray was sentenced to 180 months in prison upon
    his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g) (2000). He now appeals his sentence, claiming that
    his   sentence   as   an   armed   career   criminal   violates    the   Sixth
    Amendment because the predicate convictions were neither charged in
    the indictment nor admitted. This argument fails under controlling
    Circuit precedent. We have held that prior convictions used as the
    basis for an armed career criminal sentence need not be charged in
    the indictment, admitted by the defendant during the plea colloquy,
    or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.            United States v.
    Cheek, 
    415 F.3d 349
    , 352-54 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 640
     (2005).       We therefore affirm the sentence.*          We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    *
    We decline Ray’s invitation to reconsider the continued
    validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
    (1998), which we previously found to remain viable after
    Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000), and its progeny. See
    United States v. Thompson, 
    421 F.3d 278
    , 281-83 (4th Cir. 2005),
    cert. denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 1463
     (2006).
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-4569

Citation Numbers: 209 F. App'x 329

Judges: Per Curiam, Shedd, Wilkinson, Williams

Filed Date: 12/13/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023