United States v. Steplight , 51 F. App'x 453 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                No. 02-4088
    DAMIAN STEPLIGHT,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
    (CR-01-264-A)
    Submitted: October 31, 2002
    Decided: December 3, 2002
    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    John Kenneth Zwerling, ZWERLING & KEMLER, P.C., Alexandria,
    Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,
    LeDora Knight, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Vir-
    ginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                     UNITED STATES v. STEPLIGHT
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Damian Steplight was convicted of conspiracy to distribute fifty
    grams or more of crack cocaine and was sentenced to life imprison-
    ment. On appeal, Steplight maintains that the prosecutor made
    improper remarks during opening and closing arguments and that his
    prior felony convictions should not have been treated as sentencing
    factors. We affirm.
    To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, Steplight must
    show: (1) the government’s remarks and conduct were improper; and
    (2) the remarks or conduct prejudicially affected his substantial rights
    so as to deprive him of a fair trial. United States v. Golding, 
    168 F.3d 700
    , 702 (4th Cir. 1999). This court reviews a district court’s factual
    findings on prosecutorial misconduct for clear error. United States v.
    Ellis, 
    121 F.3d 908
    , 927 (4th Cir. 1997). Defense counsel objected at
    trial to only two of the prosecutor’s remarks with which he now takes
    issue on appeal. With the exception of these two claims, because
    Steplight failed to object to the prosecutor’s remarks at the time they
    were made, we review for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United
    States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 731-32 (1993). We have reviewed the
    record in light of Steplight’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct and
    find no reversible error.
    Steplight also maintains on appeal that he was improperly sen-
    tenced to life without parole under 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(A) (2000)
    based on two prior felony drug convictions. Steplight argues that his
    felony convictions should have been alleged in the indictment as ele-
    ments of the offense, and that the jury should have been required to
    find him guilty of all elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
    In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
     (1998), the
    Supreme Court held prior felony convictions are merely sentencing
    enhancements rather than elements of an offense and need not be
    charged in an indictment. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held in
    Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000), that 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
    UNITED STATES v. STEPLIGHT                    3
    and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    Id. at 490
    . Apprendi specifi-
    cally excluded enhancements based on prior convictions from its
    holding. Therefore, the government was not required to charge Step-
    light’s prior felony convictions in the indictment. Furthermore, this
    court has expressly determined that the holding in Almendarez-Torres
    was not overruled by Apprendi. United States v. Sterling, 
    283 F.3d 216
    , 220 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    122 S. Ct. 2606
     (2002).
    Accordingly, we affirm Steplight’s conviction and sentence. We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
    ment would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-4088

Citation Numbers: 51 F. App'x 453

Judges: Wilkins, Motz, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/3/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024