UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4891
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ARBERLIE WALLER, a/k/a Alberlie Walker,
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-05-75)
Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 12, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner,
United States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Arberlie Waller pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm. The district court found that his
Sentencing Guideline base offense level was 24, under U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(2) (2004), because of his
previous North Carolina convictions for felony distribution of
cocaine and felony breaking and entering. On appeal, Waller
disputes the propriety of the sentencing enhancement, arguing that,
under the North Carolina law and his particular criminal history he
only faced one year or less of imprisonment for the breaking and
entering conviction. Thus, he argues that his breaking and
entering conviction was not a proper predicate for the enhanced
base offense level under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(2). See USSG
§ 2K2.1(a)(2) comment. (n.1) (defining “felony conviction”).
We conclude that the district court did not err. See
United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir.) (holding that
United States v. Jones, 195 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 1999), is still
viable after Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and reaffirming that “a
prior North Carolina conviction was for a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . if any defendant
charged with that crime could receive a sentence of more than one
year.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted, emphasis in
original)), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 297 (2005).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Waller’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
- 3 -