United States v. Hill ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER LAMONT HILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-02-59)
Submitted: March 15, 2006 Decided: March 29, 2006
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick H. Marsh, HILL, TUCKER & MARSH, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J.
Elston, Kelli H. Ferry, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Lamont Hill appeals the district court’s
judgment on remand, finding Hill failed to provide evidence to
challenge the validity of the information contained in the
Government’s notice pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000), that the
Government’s notice was adequate and met § 851 requirements, and
sentencing Hill as a career criminal under § 851 to life in prison
on Counts One and Two, 360 months’ imprisonment on Counts Three and
Four, and 96 months’ imprisonment on Count Six, to run
concurrently, and 84 months of imprisonment on Count Five to run
consecutively. On appeal, Hill challenges the constitutionality of
§ 851 after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because
§ 851 allows the Government to increase the maximum punishment
without proving the facts supporting the increase to a jury beyond
a reasonable doubt or alleging those facts in an indictment. Hill
also challenges the constitutionality of § 851(e), which precludes
a defendant from challenging a prior conviction that is more than
five years old. See 21 U.S.C. § 851(e).
First, we find Hill’s allegation that § 851 is
unconstitutional foreclosed by the prior conviction exception
discussed in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224(1998), which was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Booker. 543
U.S. at 244 (“Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is
necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by
- 2 -
the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be
admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt.”); United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2005).
Next, Hill argues that the statute of limitations
provision in § 851(e) that precludes a defendant from challenging
the validity of a prior conviction used to enhance a sentence if
the conviction is over five years old is unconstitutional. We find
Hill’s argument without merit. See Custis v. United States, 511
U.S. 485 (1994).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 -