United States v. Wright

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4158 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTONIO LASHAWN WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. No. 03-4740 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTONIO LASHAWN WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-02-243) Submitted: May 14, 2004 Decided: July 1, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Antonio Lashawn Wright pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). Wright was sentenced to 180 months incarceration, 5 years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Wright appeals, asserting the district court erred in sentencing him as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We review a district court’s factual findings at sentencing for clear error and its related legal conclusions, including the application of the Sentencing Guidelines, de novo. United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). Wright’s assertion is meritless. The district court did not err in sentencing Wright as an armed career criminal. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000); United States v. Johnson, 246 F.3d 330, 333-35 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 884 (2001). Accordingly, we affirm Wright’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 - 3 -