United States v. Ingram ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4731
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WENDELL WILLIAM INGRAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-73; CR-95-148; CR-94-49)
Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 5, 2005
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher R. Clifton, GRACE, HOLTON, TISDALE, CLIFTON, P.A.,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner,
United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Wendell William Ingram appeals from his 264-month
sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to possession with
intent to distribute twenty-four grams of crack cocaine. Ingram
contends that the sentencing enhancement he received for being a
career offender is precluded by the Supreme Court’s decisions in
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) and United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
Ingram’s claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See
United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005)
(holding that defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by a jury
was not violated by district court’s reliance on his prior
convictions for purposes of sentencing as career offender); United
States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 350 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding
similarly in the context of the Armed Career Criminal Act).
Moreover, on appeal, Ingram does not challenge any factual findings
regarding the prior convictions, and he does not dispute the
factual basis for the district court’s conclusions that he was a
career offender. Accordingly, Ingram’s assertion that his sentence
violated the Sixth Amendment is without merit. See Collins, 412
F.3d at 523 (holding that, where defendant did not dispute any of
the facts supporting the career offender status in district court,
there is no constitutional violation in relying on defendant’s
prior convictions).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Ingram’s 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
- 3 -