United States of America v. Robert Lee Ray

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4569
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT LEE RAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00217-BO)
Submitted: November 20, 2006 Decided: December 13, 2006
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 2 --

*We decline Ray’s invitation to reconsider the continued
validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224
(1998), which we previously found to remain 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 -
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Ray was sentenced to 180 months in prison upon
his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18
U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). He now appeals his sentence, claiming that
his sentence as an armed career criminal violates the Sixth
Amendment because the predicate convictions were neither charged in
the indictment nor admitted. This argument fails under controlling
Circuit precedent. We have held that prior convictions used as the
basis for an armed career criminal sentence need not be charged in
the indictment, admitted by the defendant during the plea colloquy,
or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v.
Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-54 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.
Ct. 640 (2005). We therefore affirm the 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

-- 2 of 2 --