UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5084
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CLEMENT JEREMIAH WELLS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-04-149)
Submitted: August 22, 2005 Decided: September 20, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United
States Attorney, Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Clement Jeremiah Wells appeals his 180-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession of a
firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(a), 924(e), 922(g) (2000). On
appeal, Wells asserts that the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely
v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), overruled Almendarez-Torres v.
United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), requiring prior convictions to
be pled in the indictment and submitted to a jury. Accordingly,
Wells asserts that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment
rights because the facts used to increase his sentence based upon
prior convictions were not alleged in the indictment or found by a
jury.
Wells’ argument fails because even after Booker, the
government need not allege in its indictment and need not prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had prior convictions
for a district court to use those convictions for purposes of
enhancing a sentence. United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756
(2005) (“[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 or a jury verdict must be
admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt”); see United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2005).
- 2 -
Even assuming that the prior conviction exception no longer
applies, Wells’ sentence does not violate his Sixth Amendment
rights. Wells’ indictment states that he was previously convicted
of a felony, and also cites § 924(e). Moreover, at his change of
plea hearing, the district court informed Wells that under § 924(e)
he would be subject to a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence.
Wells stated that he understood this, and without objecting to the
district court’s statement that he had several violent or drug
trafficking priors, entered a guilty plea to the indictment.
Accordingly, because these facts were pled in the indictment, and
admitted to as part of a guilty plea, we conclude that there is no
Sixth Amendment violation. We therefore affirm Wells’ 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 -