UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5147
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM KEVIN GOODWIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-05-174-NCT)
Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Kearns
Davis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Kevin Goodwin pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000), and was sentenced to thirty months’ imprisonment, three
years of supervised release, and ordered to pay the statutory
assessment of $100. The district court denied Goodwin’s pre-plea
motion in which Goodwin moved to dismiss the indictment on the
ground that his previous North Carolina conviction for possession
with intent to sell and deliver cocaine did not constitute a “prior
felony” for purposes of § 922(g)(1), because under North Carolina
law and his particular criminal history he only faced six to eight
months on the drug conviction. Goodwin asserted that the drug
conviction was not a proper predicate offense under the indictment
because the applicable term of imprisonment was less than one year.
Goodwin appeals, raising the same issue, yet acknowledging that his
claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent.
We conclude, as Goodwin admits, that the district court
did not err because his argument is foreclosed by this court’s
decision in 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
- 2 -
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). Thus, because a
sentence of over twelve months could be imposed on a defendant
convicted of possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine,
Goodwin’s prior conviction was properly considered a felony.
Accordingly, we affirm Goodwin’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 -