United States v. Hart ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5093
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL NEAL HART,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-05-44)
Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 26, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Neal Hart pled guilty to possession of ammunition
by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and was
sentenced as an armed career criminal to the mandatory minimum term
of 180 months imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West
2000 & Supp. 2005). Hart appeals his sentence, contending that,
under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Shepard v.
United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), the sentence was imposed in
violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. We affirm.
Hart’s criminal record included felony convictions for
multiple incidents of breaking and entering and arson committed in
1997; breaking and entering in 2003; and both kidnaping and assault
with a deadly weapon in 2004. Hart does not dispute that he
qualified for sentencing as an armed career criminal, but asserts
that the sentence is unconstitutional because the indictment did
not charge that he had three qualifying prior convictions committed
on occasions different from one other, and because the necessary
facts were neither proved by the government beyond a reasonable
doubt nor admitted by him. Hart acknowledges that his arguments
are foreclosed by United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 281-83
(4th Cir. 2005) (holding that judicial armed career criminal
designation does not violate Fifth or Sixth Amendment under Booker
or Shepard if “the facts necessary to support the enhancement
- 2 -
inhere in the fact of [the] conviction[s]”), cert. denied, 126 S.
Ct. 1463 (2006).
We therefore conclude that no error occurred and that the
sentence was reasonable. We affirm the sentence imposed by the
district court. 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
- 3 -