United States v. Long , 213 F. App'x 254 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4538
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WINDELL LONG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:02-cr-1281)
Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 22, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United
States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Windell Long appeals from his 252-month sentence entered
pursuant to his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a
firearm and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime. Long contends that his designation for
sentencing purposes as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e)(1)(2000) is precluded by the Supreme Court’s decision in
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
Long’s claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent.
See United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 286 (4th Cir. 2005)
(holding that Blakely’s requirement that facts extraneous to a
prior conviction be found by a jury does not cover the essential
components of a conviction, including integral facts such as the
statutory violation and date of offense), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
1463 (2006); United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 350 (4th Cir.)
(holding that defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by a jury
was not violated by district court’s reliance on his prior
convictions for purposes of sentencing under the Armed Career
Criminal Act), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 640 (2005). Moreover, on
appeal, Long does not challenge any factual findings regarding the
prior convictions, and he does not dispute the factual basis for
the district court’s conclusions that he was an armed career
criminal. Accordingly, Long’s assertion that his sentence violated
the Sixth Amendment is without merit. See United States v.
- 2 -
Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 523 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that, where
defendant did not dispute any of the facts supporting the career
offender status in district court, there is no constitutional
violation in relying on defendant’s prior convictions).
Accordingly, we affirm Long’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
- 3 -