UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4667
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN MARK RICHARDSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-90)
Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 15, 2005
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B.
Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Mark Richardson pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Both
his plea agreement and plea hearing reveal that Richardson was
informed that the Government considered him an armed career
criminal under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West Supp. 2005) and that his
minimum sentence under the statute was fifteen years of
imprisonment.
Counsel conceded at Richardson’s sentencing hearing that
the designation was proper but argued that the sentencing
enhancement was invalid in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The district court
sentenced Richardson to 180 months of imprisonment, the mandatory
minimum under § 924(e). Since Richardson’s appeal, the Supreme
Court has extended its decision in Blakely to federal criminal
defendants. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005)
(striking down the mandatory provisions of the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines). On appeal, Richardson argues (1) that the sentence is
invalid in light of Blakely and (2) that his criminal history, as
calculated in his presentence report, is also invalid. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
Richardson has preserved his Blakely arguments for
appellate review. He first alleges that his armed career criminal
designation does not survive Blakely. Richardson, however, does
- 2 -
not deny the fact of his five prior North Carolina convictions for
“Felonious Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon” or that such
convictions are a proper predicate for the armed career criminal
enhancement he received. Because Richardson’s fifteen-year
sentence was mandated by statute, the then-mandatory sentencing
guidelines did not affect his sentence. Accordingly, we find there
is no error under Booker. See United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d
850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005) (“Booker did nothing to alter the rule
that judges cannot depart below a statutorily provided minimum
sentence.”). Moreover, we recently rejected the argument that a
defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are violated under Booker when
his sentence is statutorily enhanced under § 924(e). See United
States v. Cheek, __ F.3d __, 2005 WL 1669398 (4th Cir. July 19,
2005) (No. 04-4445).
Second, Richardson alleges that his criminal history, as
calculated in his presentence report, was erroneous in light of
Blakely. This claim fails, however, as Richardson’s sentence was
not increased based on his criminal history. Rather, Richardson
was sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence under § 924(e).
Thus, we affirm Richardson’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 -