United States v. Lamont Johnson , 456 F. App'x 220 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4998
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAMONT LUTHER JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:09-cr-00588-PJM-1)
Submitted: November 10, 2011 Decided: December 1, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, Staff
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein
United States Attorney, Michael J. Leotta, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lamont Luther Johnson appeals his 183-month sentence
imposed pursuant to a plea of guilty to possessing a firearm
after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
(2006). The district court sentenced Johnson under the Armed
Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006), based on
its finding that Johnson had previously been convicted of at
least three violent felonies that were committed on separate
occasions.
On appeal, Johnson argues that the district court
erred in relying on the statement of facts introduced during the
state plea hearing on the prior convictions in question. He
also argues that he did not affirmatively agree with the facts
recited by the state prosecutor, and therefore his sentence is
improper. “We review de novo whether a defendant’s previous
conviction was for a predicate offense under the ACCA.” United
States v. Harcum, 587 F.3d 219, 222 (4th Cir. 2009). We
conclude that Johnson’s assertion that the district court erred
in considering the transcript of the plea hearing on the
convictions in question is without merit. A sentencing court
may consider, inter alia, a “transcript of colloquy between
judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was
confirmed by the defendant,” in determining whether a prior
conviction is an ACCA predicate. Johnson also argues that our
2
decision in United States v. Alston, 611 F.3d 219, 226 (4th Cir.
2010), precluded the district court from relying on the plea
colloquy. Johnson did not, however, enter an Alford ∗ plea in the
state proceedings. We recently held that this distinction is
dispositive. We conclude Johnson’s argument is without merit.
United States v. Taylor, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 5034576 (4th Cir.
Oct. 24, 2011). Accordingly, we affirm Johnson’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
∗
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
3