UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KEVIN TEAGUE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-01-152)
Submitted: June 20, 2003 Decided: July 18, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Brian
Steven Cromwell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Teague appeals his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000) conviction
and sentence. Teague asserts the submission to the jury of the
factual predicate questions underlying his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
enhancement for brandishing or discharging a firearm violated the
Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545,
559-66 (2002). We review this claim de novo. United States v.
Mackins, 315 F.3d 399, 406 (4th Cir. 2003).
Teague’s claim is meritless. While Harris holds that a
district court judge is authorized to make factual findings that
trigger the imposition of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)’s mandatory minimums
under a preponderance standard, it does not follow that a
defendant’s rights are violated where, as here, a jury determines
the facts underlying the enhancement have been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt, as the court’s sentencing power merely flows from
the authorization granted by the jury. Harris, 536 U.S. at 559-66.
Moreover, even if Teague could demonstrate error, the error would
be harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); Mackins, 315 F.3d at 405.
Accordingly, we affirm Teague’s conviction and 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