United States v. Jarrell , 282 F. App'x 261 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5049
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TROY DAVID JARRELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (2:07-cr-00002)
Submitted: June 9, 2008 Decided: June 23, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis H. Curry, Spencer, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, Karen L. Bleattler, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troy David Jarrell pled guilty to one count of possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000), and
was sentenced to 84 months imprisonment. He appeals, challenging
the inclusion of three state court convictions in his criminal
history calculation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In the presentence report, Jarrell was assessed a total
of eighteen criminal history points, resulting in a Criminal
History Category of VI. Of those eighteen points, three were
assessed for convictions in May 2004 for attempting to disarm a
police officer, fleeing from a police officer, and driving under
the influence, third offense. Jarrell objected to the inclusion of
these convictions in his criminal history computation, arguing that
the state court lacked jurisdiction over the case.
The Supreme Court has held that a defendant in a federal
sentencing proceeding has no right to collaterally challenge a
prior state court conviction used to enhance his sentence except
where the defendant can demonstrate that the prior state conviction
was obtained in the absence of appointed counsel. Custis v. United
States, 511 U.S. 485, 496 (1994). Further, “[t]he general rule
regarding prior convictions is clear: in analyzing whether a
defendant is a career offender, a district court must count as a
predicate conviction a prior state offense that has not been
- 2 -
reversed, vacated, or invalidated.” United States v. Hondo, 366
F.3d 363, 365 (4th Cir. 2004).
Here, Jarrell concedes that he was represented by counsel
during the 2004 proceedings. Moreover, he has not shown that the
convictions were reversed, vacated, or otherwise invalidated.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in overruling Jarrell’s
objection to the inclusion of the convictions in his criminal
history. Therefore, we affirm his 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 -