United States v. Reddicks

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4207
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL CHRISTIAN REDDICKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CR-03-111)
Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: March 17, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy V. Cargill, MAGEE, FOSTER, GOLDSTEIN & SAYERS, P.C., Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellant. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Christian Reddicks appeals his conviction and
120-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g) (2000). Reddicks’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were
no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
district court erred when it sentenced Reddicks as a career
offender. Although advised of his right to file a supplemental
brief, Reddicks has not done so.
Counsel addresses whether Reddicks’ sentence violates the
Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005). Reddicks claims that the career offender enhancement
violates Booker because the predicate offenses were not charged in
the indictment. However, we have held that where, as here, the
facts are undisputed, the application of the career offender
enhancement falls within the exception for prior convictions,
regardless of whether or not the fact of the conviction was
admitted by the defendant or found by a jury. United States v.
Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 521-23 (4th Cir. 2005); see also United
States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 282-83 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding
that district court may impose armed career criminal sentence
relying on prior convictions neither charged nor admitted if facts
necessary to support enhanced sentence are inherent in fact of
- 2 -
convictions and no additional fact finding is required), petition
for cert. filed, Oct. 25, 2005 (No. 05-7266). We also find no
error in the district court’s application of the sentencing
guidelines as mandatory because the court imposed an identical,
alternative sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2005) and United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004),
vacated and remanded, 125 S. Ct. 1051 (2005).
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Reddicks’
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If the client requests
that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave
to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 -