UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4308
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODNEY LLOYD BRADFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-03-237)
Submitted: November 2, 2005 Decided: November 22, 2005
Before WILKINSON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Robert A. J. Lang, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rodney Lloyd Bradford appeals his conviction and sentence
to 180 months in prison and five years of supervised release
following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm, after having
been convicted of three counts of felony breaking and entering, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1) (2000). Bradford’s
attorney initially filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were no meritorious grounds
for appeal but raising the issue of whether there was appealable
error under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Following
the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.
738 (2005), Bradford’s counsel filed a supplemental brief raising
the issue of whether his enhanced punishment as an armed career
criminal violated his right to a jury trial under the Sixth
Amendment. Bradford was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but did not do so. Finding no meritorious
issues, we affirm.
Although Bradford did not object to the presentence
report or dispute that he had at least three prior convictions for
felony breaking and entering under North Carolina law, he contends
that whether or not these offenses qualified as “violent felonies”
or were “committed on occasions different from one another” under
18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000) were facts that had to be charged in the
indictment and determined by the jury or admitted by him. However,
- 2 -
Bradford’s arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Thompson,
421 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2005). Because the facts necessary to
support both the fifteen-year mandatory minimum prison sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and the enhancement under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 4B1.4(b)(3)(B) (2003) “inhere in the fact of
conviction,” there was no error. See id. at 283, 287 & n.5.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Bradford’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, 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
- 3 -