Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
12-4972•United States of America v. Coley Terrance Holman
12-4972Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit09.05.2013
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4972
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
COLEY TERRANCE HOLMAN
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00072-WO-1)
Submitted: May 6, 2013 Decided: May 9, 2013
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S.
Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
T. Nick Matkins, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Bethany Corbin, Third Year Law Student, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Coley Terrance Holman pled guilty in accordance with a
written plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). He was sentenced to 186
months in prison. Holman now appeals, arguing that he was
improperly sentenced as an armed career criminal because the
indictment did not charge a violation of the Armed Career
Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006). We affirm.
As Holman acknowledges in his brief, controlling
circuit precedent defeats his claim. We have held that prior
convictions used as the basis for sentencing a defendant as an
armed career criminal need not be charged in the indictment or
proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v.
Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352 (4th Cir. 2005).
We accordingly affirm. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.