United States v. Purdue ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4141
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BRUCE HOWARD PERDUE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00229-WLO)
Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 1, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Scott Holmes, STUBBS, COLE, BREEDLOVE, PRENTIS & BIGGS, Durham,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bruce Howard Perdue pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). Perdue was sentenced to
the statutory mandatory minimum term as an armed career criminal,
under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e)(1) (West Supp. 2006), to 180 months of
imprisonment. On appeal, Perdue asserts that his sentence as an
armed career criminal violates the Double Jeopardy clause.
Perdue’s argument is foreclosed by United States v.
Presley, 52 F.3d 64 (4th Cir. 1995), in which this court held that
the Armed Career Criminal Act does not violate the Double Jeopardy
Clause. Nor does the use of prior convictions to enhance a
defendant’s sentence violate the holding in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Thompson, 421
F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting that, where the defendant does not
dispute any facts related to his prior convictions, the district
court’s determination of the criminal history category does not
violate the Sixth Amendment), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1463 (2006).
We therefore affirm Perdue’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
- 2 -