UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4578
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GARRIS MAURICE GRIFFIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-04-00008)
Submitted: May 25, 2005 Decided: June 7, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherwin J. Jacobs, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant
United States Attorney, Lara Kate Jacobs, Third-Year Practice Law
Student, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Garris Maurice Griffin appeals the 100-month sentence
imposed after he pled guilty, without a written plea agreement, to
an information charging him with possession of a number of firearms
by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000).
Citing Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), Griffin
contends only that his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was
violated because the district court enhanced his sentence under
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) and (b)(4)
(2003), based upon findings by a preponderance of the evidence that
thirty-four stolen firearms were involved in the offense. We
affirm.
In United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the
Supreme Court held that the mandatory manner in which the federal
sentencing guidelines required courts to impose sentencing
enhancements based on facts found by the court by a preponderance
of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 746, 750
(Stevens, J., opinion of the Court). The Court reaffirmed its
holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that “[a]ny
fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support
a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts
established by a plea of guilty . . . must be admitted by the
defendant . . . .” Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756 (Stevens, J., opinion
of the Court). Our review of the record in this case convinces us
- 2 -
that no Sixth Amendment violation occurred because, at the plea
hearing, Griffin admitted the facts supporting the enhancements.
Accordingly, we affirm Griffin’s 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
*
We decline to review the issue of whether the district court
erred in sentencing Griffin under a mandatory guidelines regime,
see Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756-67 (Breyer, J., opinion of the
Court), because he did not raise that issue on appeal. See United
States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 216 n.5 (4th Cir. 2005).
- 3 -