UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4688
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODERICK LAMONT LATTIMORE,
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-04-116)
Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 22, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Lisa Blue 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Roderick Lamont Lattimore appeals his conviction and
sentence for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.
Lattimore’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the issue of whether
Lattimore’s sentence violated Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296
(2004). Lattimore filed a pro se supplemental brief, contending
that his right to confront witnesses was violated. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.*
Lattimore first asserts that the district court’s
conclusion that he was a career offender violated Blakely. This
claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v.
Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 521-23 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that
defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by a jury was not
violated by district court’s reliance on his prior convictions for
purposes of sentencing as career offender); see also United
States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 285-86 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding
that prior convictions could not be severed from their essential
components, such as separateness, location, and dates of offenses,
and that, therefore, no finding of fact is made with respect to
these inherent facts). Moreover, Lattimore did not challenge any
*
Lattimore’s plea agreement contained an appellate waiver
provision, but because the Government has failed to assert the
waiver, we address the substance of Lattimore’s claims.
- 2 -
factual findings regarding the prior convictions, and he did not
dispute the factual basis for the district court’s conclusions that
he was a career offender. Accordingly, Lattimore’s assertion that
his career offender enhancement violated the Sixth Amendment is
without merit. See Collins, 412 F.3d at 523 (holding that, where
defendant did not dispute any facts supporting the career offender
status in district court, there is no constitutional violation in
relying on defendant’s prior convictions).
Lattimore also challenges various other sentencing
enhancements under Blakely. However, because Lattimore’s career
offender status determined his sentencing range, any improper
factual findings regarding other enhancements did not impact his
sentence. Thus, any error was harmless.
Finally, Lattimore contends that the district court
violated his right to confront the witnesses against him. However,
Lattimore’s guilty plea waived this claim. In fact, Lattimore was
specifically informed of this fact during his guilty plea hearing,
and he stated that he understood.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Lattimore’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,
- 3 -
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client. 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
- 4 -