UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4739
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GAVIN RODERICK WHITE, a/k/a Joe White,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CR-97-28)
Submitted: January 10, 2006 Decided: February 1, 2006
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John E. Davidson, DAVIDSON & KITZMANN, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Ray B.
Fitzgerald, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gavin Roderick White appeals his 188-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to one count of possession with the
intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(b)(1)(C). White first argues that the district court erred “in
giving the United States Sentencing Guidelines greater weight than
the other sentencing factors Congress delineated in 18 U.S.C. §
3553" when determining his sentence. (Appellant’s Brief, Statement
of Issues) This argument is without merit. Section 3553(a) of
Title 18 requires a court to consider a number of factors,
including the sentencing guidelines, when setting a defendant’s
sentence. We have independently reviewed the record and find that
the district court committed no error in its consideration of the
§ 3553(a) factors.
White next challenges the district court’s application of the
career offender sentencing enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) based
on numerous prior convictions.1 White does not dispute the fact of
1
Under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a), “[a] defendant is a career
offender if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at
the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction;
(2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a
crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the
defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a
crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” U.S.
SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 4B1.1(a) (2005). For purposes of the
career offender enhancement, the term “controlled substance
offense” is defined as “an offense under federal or state law,
punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than one year, that
prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or
dispensing of a controlled substance . . . or the possession of a
2
the prior convictions; rather, he first argues that sentencing
enhancements based on prior convictions should, in general, be
unavailable where the fact of such conviction is neither alleged in
an indictment nor admitted by the defendant. This argument,
however, is foreclosed by United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278,
285-86 (4th Cir. 2005), where we held that a sentencing court does
not violate the Sixth Amendment by applying a guidelines
enhancement based on the fact of a prior conviction so long as the
facts relevant to the enhancement are inherent in the prior
conviction. Thompson makes clear that the universe of facts that
a court can rely on when applying a guidelines enhancement is not
as limited as White suggests.
White next argues that the district court made specific
findings of fact regarding his prior convictions that violate the
Sixth Amendment. This argument is without merit. Our review of
the record indicates that the district court did not engage in any
improper fact-finding in this case. The record before the district
court contained sufficient information regarding White’s prior drug
convictions to justify application of the career offender
controlled substance . . . with intent to manufacture, import,
export, distribute, or dispense.” U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL §
4B1.2(b) (2005).
The Presentence Investigation Report for White listed fourteen
adult convictions in fourteen years, including one Virginia
conviction for distributing cocaine and a federal conviction for
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. J.A. 82-84.
3
enhancement without violating the Sixth Amendment. The Pre-
Sentence Report indicates that White had been previously convicted
of two controlled substance offenses: (1) two state counts of
distributing cocaine in 1992, and (2) one federal count of
possession with intent to distribute cocaine in 1992. J.A. 83-84.2
Each of these prior convictions qualifies as a “controlled
substance offense” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) because each was
“punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than one year”3 and
each involved either the distribution of or possession with intent
to distribute a controlled substance. Therefore, we find that the
district court had sufficient information before it to sentence
White as a career offender without engaging in fact-finding that
violates the Sixth Amendment.
Accordingly, we affirm White’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
2
The designation “J.A.” refers to the Joint Appendix filed by
the parties with this appeal.
3
For his state convictions, Mr. White was sentenced to 5 years
with 5 years suspended on one count and 12 years with 4 years
suspended on the second count. J.A. 83. For his federal
conviction, Mr. White was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and
3 years supervised release. J.A. 84.
4