UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4904
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN ALBERT BRADLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-04-433)
Submitted: August 31, 2005 Decided: October 6, 2005
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United
States Attorney, Brent Alan Gray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Albert Bradley challenges the sentence imposed
against him for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), contending that the district court’s
application of an enhanced base offense level under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4) (2003), and a two-level enhancement
for an obliterated serial number, USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4), violated the
Sixth Amendment in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296
(2004). We affirm.
Because Bradley preserved his Sixth Amendment claim, our
review is de novo. See United States v. Mackins, 315 F.3d 399, 405
(4th Cir. 2003). Bradley had a prior felony conviction for
possession of crack with intent to distribute. The district court
did not need to make any fact findings about this conviction to
conclude that it was a controlled substance offense. See United
States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 523 (4th Cir. 2005). Therefore,
the enhancement of Bradley’s base offense level under § 2K2.1(a)(4)
did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
Moreover, although Bradley did not expressly admit that
the firearm he possessed had an obliterated serial number, the
sentence he received did not exceed the maximum the court could
have imposed based only on facts Bradley admitted before adjusting
for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Evans, 416
F.3d 298, 300-01 & n.4 (4th Cir. 2005). Without the two-level
- 2 -
enhancement for an obliterated serial number and before any
reduction for acceptance of responsibility, Bradley’s offense level
would have been 20 and his guideline range would have been 70-87
months. Therefore, Bradley’s 78-month sentence is within the
guideline range that would have applied without the enhancement,
and no Sixth Amendment violation occurred.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
court. 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 -