UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5066
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RUSSELL RICHARD ROBINSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-03-1139)
Submitted: November 21, 2005 Decided: December 27, 2005
Before WILKINSON, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Columbia, South Carolina; 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Russell Richard Robinson, Jr., pled guilty to possession
with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced him as a career
offender to a 186-month term of imprisonment. Robinson appeals his
sentence, asserting that it violates the Sixth Amendment. We
affirm.
Citing United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005),
Robinson asserts that his career offender sentence pursuant to U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2003), violates his Sixth
Amendment rights because the prior convictions were not admitted by
him or submitted to a jury. Because Robinson did not raise this
issue in the district court, our review is for plain error. See
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547-48 (4th Cir. 2005).
Robinson’s argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States
v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 521-23 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that
application of career offender enhancement falls within exception
for prior convictions where facts were undisputed, making it
unnecessary to engage in further fact finding about prior
conviction). Thus, there is no Sixth Amendment error in this
case.*
*
The Government argues that Robinson’s plea agreement bars him
from appealing this issue. In the agreement, Robinson waived the
right to have facts that determined his offense level presented to
a grand jury, alleged in an indictment, and found by a jury beyond
a reasonable doubt, agreed that such facts would be found by the
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Robinson’s 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
court using a preponderance of the evidence standard, and waived
all constitutional challenges to the validity of the Sentencing
Guidelines. Because we find no Sixth Amendment error, we need not
reach the issue of waiver.
- 3 -