United States v. Oliver , 110 F. App'x 330 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4127
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RANDY OLIVER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-03-191-F)
Submitted: August 27, 2004 Decided: October 5, 2004
Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Marcia G. Shein, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA G. SHEIN, P.C., Decatur,
Georgia, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney,
Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Randy Oliver appeals from his conviction and 188-month
sentence pursuant to his guilty plea to possession of a firearm as
a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000).
Oliver raises a number of challenges to the district
court’s order denying his motion to dismiss. We review the
district court’s factual findings for clear error, and its legal
conclusions de novo. United States v. Pasquantino, 305 F.3d 291,
294 (4th Cir. 2002). Oliver’s assertions are not compelling.
Oliver cannot establish the district court erred in rejecting his
arguments regarding: the applicability of United States v. Caron,
524 U.S. 308, 314-16 (1998), to North Carolina’s Felony Firearms
Act (“NCFFA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415.1; Oliver’s alleged lack of
notice regarding his rights; entrapment by estoppel, United States
v. Clark, 986 F.2d 65, 69 (4th Cir. 1993); United States v.
Etheridge, 932 F.2d 318, 320-21 (4th Cir. 1991); the constitutional
prohibition on ex post facto laws, United States v. Farrow, 364
F.3d 551, 555 (4th Cir. 2004); and the Rule of Lenity, Caron, 524
U.S. at 316.
Oliver also contends the district court erred in
sentencing him under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (2000). Oliver,
however, expressly waived his right to raise this sort of challenge
to his appeal in his plea agreement, foreclosing this claim. See
United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Oliver’s conviction and dismiss
his appeal insofar as he attempts to challenge 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -