United States of America v. FRANKIE LANE DOCTOR, SR., a/k/a Nose

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4428
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANKIE LANE DOCTOR, SR., a/k/a Nose,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00681-JFA)
Submitted: October 27, 2006 Decided: November 27, 2006
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Stacey D.
Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Frankie Lane Doctor, Sr., was found guilty of one count
of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and 924(e) (2000)
and possession of a quantity of cocaine base (lesser included
offense), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 (2000). The district
court designated Doctor an armed career offender and sentenced him,
pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), to a 262-month
term of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, $125
special assessment, and a mandatory minimum fine of $1000. On
appeal, Doctor argues that the district court improperly sentenced
him as an armed career criminal because the Government failed to
properly plead and prove enhancing factors.
Doctor does not dispute the fact of his prior convictions
or the sentences he received. The fact of a prior conviction need
not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Almendarez-Torres v.
United States, 523 U.S. 224, 233-36 (1998); United States v. Cheek,
415 F.3d 349, 351-54 (4th Cir.) (reaffirming continuing validity of
Almendarez-Torres after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005)), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 640 (2005). Thus, the district
court was not required to make any factual findings concerning
Doctor’s prior record at the time of the instant offense, but could
rely on the “conclusive significance” of the record, see Shepard v.
United States, 544 U.S. 13, 25 (2005), as set out in the

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
presentence report. Moreover, this court has concluded a
determination that a defendant is eligible for sentencing under the
ACCA may be based on a judge’s determination that the predicate
convictions are for violent felonies or drug trafficking crimes if
the qualifying facts are inherent in the predicate convictions and
the court is not required to perform additional fact finding.
United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 282-83 (4th Cir. 2005).
We conclude that the district court was not required to engage in
additional fact finding. Additional pleading and proof regarding
the facts surrounding each of the predicate convictions would not
have assisted the district court in determining that each qualified
as a violent felony under the ACCA, as the qualifying facts are
inherent in each of Doctor’s predicate convictions. Therefore, we
find that the district court properly sentenced Doctor under the
ACCA.
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 --