UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4158
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID GRANT, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-04-302)
Submitted: February 22, 2006 Decided: March 14, 2006
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William L. Runyon, Jr., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
John Charles Duane, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Grant, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence to
168 months’ imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute
heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(c) (2000). Grant's
attorney 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
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Grant was notified
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so.
Finding no meritorious issues, we affirm.
Grant was convicted after his guilty plea pursuant to a
plea agreement. He did not move to withdraw his plea in the
district court, and he does not now contest the voluntariness of
his plea. The district court fully explained the charges, the
range of penalties, and the rights Grant was giving up by pleading
guilty. Grant acknowledged that he understood the district court’s
explanation and was satisfied with his attorney. Upon our review,
we find no plain error in the district court’s acceptance of
Grant’s guilty plea. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517,
524-26 (4th Cir. 2002).
Grant did not object to the presentence report or dispute
his prior convictions, which were used to enhance both his base
offense level and his criminal history category. In Almendarez-
Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 233-35 (1998), the Supreme
- 2 -
Court held that the government need not allege in its indictment
and need not prove beyond reasonable doubt that a defendant had
prior convictions for a district court to use those convictions for
purposes of enhancing a sentence. This court has confirmed that
Almendarez-Torres was not overruled by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
U.S. 466 (2000), or United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
and remains the law. United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349 (4th
Cir. 2005). We accordingly conclude that the district court did
not err when it used Grant’s prior convictions in calculating his
sentence. Moreover, there is no nonspeculative basis for
concluding that the district court would have imposed a different
sentence under a non-mandatory application of the sentencing
guidelines. See United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 215 (4th
Cir. 2005).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.
- 3 -
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 -