United States v. Gardner , 266 F. App'x 232 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-4758
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    KENNETH LEE GARDNER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:06-
    cr-00422-PJM)
    Submitted:   January 17, 2008          Decided:     January 22, 2008
    Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Paresh S. Patel, Staff
    Attorney, Lisa W. Lunt, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
    Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.    Rod J. Rosenstein, United
    States Attorney, Emily N. Glatfelter, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth Lee Gardner pled guilty to possession of a
    firearm 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 fifteen years imprisonment under 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 924
    (e) (West 2000
    & Supp. 2007).      Gardner appeals his sentence.    We affirm.
    Gardner argues that his sentence violates the Sixth
    Amendment under Blakely v. Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
     (2004), and
    United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), because the predicate
    convictions were neither admitted by him nor proved to a jury
    beyond a reasonable doubt.      As Gardner concedes, we have rejected
    this     argument   in   previous   decisions.      See   United    States
    v. Williams, 
    461 F.3d 441
    , 452 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    127 S. Ct. 616
     (2006); United States v. Cheek, 
    415 F.3d 349
    , 354 (4th Cir.
    2005).
    We therefore 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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-4758

Citation Numbers: 266 F. App'x 232

Judges: Traxler, Shedd, Duncan

Filed Date: 1/22/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024