United States of America v. Rockie Gene Williams

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4778
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROCKIE GENE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00261-H)
Submitted: January 17, 2007 Decided: February 15, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Rockie Gene Williams appeals the 180-month sentence he
received after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Williams was
sentenced as an armed career criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 4B1.4 (2005). He contends on appeal that his enhanced
sentence violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments under Blakely v.
Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), because it was based on facts that
were not charged or proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or admitted
by him. We affirm.
Williams did not dispute the fact or nature of the
predicate convictions in the district court. We have previously
held that the fact that a defendant has prior convictions that may
be used as the basis for an armed career criminal sentence need not
be charged or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v.
Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-54 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
640 (2005). We decline Williams’ invitation to reconsider the
continued validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.
224 (1998), which we previously held to be still viable after
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny. See
United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 281-83 (4th Cir. 2005),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1463 (2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 - - 3 -
We therefore 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

-- 3 of 3 --