UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4530
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES JUNIOR LOVE,
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-04-22)
Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 26, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Charles Junior Love pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to one count of possession with intent to
distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and one
count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g) (2000), and was sentenced to 192 months of imprisonment on
the drug count and 120 months on the firearms count, to run
concurrently. Love appeals, claiming that the sentencing
enhancement he received for being a career offender, see U.S.
States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2003), violates the
Supreme Court’s decisions in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296
(2004), and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
Love’s claim is foreclosed by this court’s decision in
United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005), in
which we held that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by
a jury is not violated by the district court’s reliance on his
prior convictions for purposes of sentencing as a career offender.
See also United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 350 (4th Cir. 2005)
(holding similarly in the context of the Armed Career Criminal
Act).
Accordingly, we affirm Love’s sentence. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -