United States v. Matthews , 54 F. App'x 143 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-4589
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DAVID FLOYD MATTHEWS, JR., a/k/a Junior,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District        Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.         James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-01-348)
    Submitted:   December 19, 2002         Decided:     December 31, 2002
    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, L. Patrick
    Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Rami Madan, Third-Year Law
    Student, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    David Floyd Matthews, Jr., pled guilty to possession of a
    firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1)
    (2000).   He contests the 82-month sentence he received, arguing
    that the district court erred by enhancing his base offense level
    by two levels because the firearm was stolen when that fact was not
    alleged in the indictment.    See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
    § 2K2.1(b)(4) (2001).   We affirm.
    Matthews contends that, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    , 490 (2000), facts that increase the sentencing guideline range
    must be charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable
    doubt.    However, Apprendi is not implicated when the sentencing
    court makes factual findings that increase the sentencing guideline
    range but the sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum.
    Harris v. United States, 
    122 S. Ct. 2406
    , 2418 (2002).
    Because the issue raised by Matthews lacks merit, we affirm
    the sentence imposed by the district court.   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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-4589

Citation Numbers: 54 F. App'x 143

Judges: Wilkins, King, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/31/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024