United States v. Hunt , 403 F. App'x 837 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4063
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBY RAY HUNT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00034-FL-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2010 Decided: December 8, 2010
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul K. Sun, Jr., ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Ray Hunt pleaded guilty to possession of a
firearm after having previously been convicted of a crime
punishable by a term exceeding one year of imprisonment, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court
found that Hunt qualified as an armed career criminal pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006), and sentenced Hunt to the
statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 180 months.
Hunt appeals, challenging the finding that he is an armed career
criminal. Finding no error, we affirm.
Hunt first argues that the district court erred in
finding that he was an armed career criminal based on his prior
North Carolina convictions for possession with intent to deliver
and delivery of controlled substances. Hunt correctly concedes,
however, that his argument is foreclosed by our recent decision
in United States v. McNeill, 598 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2010),
petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 2, 2010) (No. 10-5258), and
we may not overrule this court’s binding precedent. United
States v. Simms, 441 F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir. 2006) (“A decision
of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is
binding on other panels unless it is overruled by a subsequent
en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision
of the Supreme Court.” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)). Therefore, this claim fails.
2
Hunt next argues that the district court violated his
Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by sentencing him above the
otherwise-applicable statutory maximum based on his prior
convictions. Again, Hunt correctly concedes that his argument
is foreclosed by binding Supreme Court precedent. See
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (“Other than
the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the
penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must
be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”);
see also United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352 (4th Cir.
2005) (“[T]he Sixth Amendment (as well as due process) does not
demand that the mere fact of a prior conviction used as a basis
for a sentencing enhancement be pleaded in an indictment and
submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”).
Therefore, this claim also fails.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 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