United States v. Manley ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4778
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BRIAN KEITH MANLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-04-43)
Submitted: March 8, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ames C. Chamberlin, LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Robert A. J. Lang, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Brian Keith Manley pled guilty to one count of being a
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(e) (2000). Because of Manley’s prior
convictions, he was classified as an armed career criminal under
§ 924(e) and exposed to a fifteen year minimum sentence. As a
result of the classification, Manley was assigned a base offense
level of 33 and placed in criminal history category VI. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 4B1.4(b)(3)(B),(c)(1) (2003). On
appeal, Manley claimed the district court erred under Blakely v.
Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), by finding he was an armed career
criminal. According to Manley, the prior convictions used to find
he was an armed career criminal were not charged in the indictment.
Manley also contends the court engaged in improper fact-finding to
determine his criminal history, which was based on prior
convictions, the length of sentences and the date of his most
recent release from prison. While Manley did object under Blakely
at sentencing, he did not contest any of the prior convictions or
sentences. Finding no error, we affirm.
In Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S. Ct. 1254(2005), the Supreme Court held that Sixth Amendment protections
apply only to disputed facts about a prior conviction that are not
evident from “the conclusive significance of a prior judicial
record.” 125 S. Ct. at 1262-63. In United States v. Thompson, 421
- 2 -
F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, 2006 WL
521274 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2006), this court held that predicate
convictions did not have to be charged in the indictment or
submitted to a jury so long as no facts extraneous to the facts
necessary to support the armed career criminal enhancement need be
decided to invoke the enhancement. Id. at 282-84, 284 n.4.
Manley’s prior record established conclusively that he had three
convictions for violent felonies committed on different occasions:
four counts of breaking and entering and one count of felony arson.
Accordingly, the facts of those prior convictions properly resulted
in Manley being considered an armed career criminal.
We also find no error in placing Manley in criminal
history category VI. The facts of prior convictions and the
sentences established enough points to reach category VI.
Moreover, Manley did not challenge the existence of any prior
conviction or sentence. See United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d
515, 522-23 (4th Cir. 2005) (finding no Sixth Amendment violation
where nature and separateness of predicate offenses for career
offender status was undisputed).
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and 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 -