UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4194
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHELIA GAIL SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00209-WLO)
Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 30, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Sandra J.
Hairston, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Shelia Gail Smith entered a conditional plea of guilty to
possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony
offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The
district court imposed an eighteen-month sentence. On appeal,
Smith contends that the district court erred in denying her motion
to dismiss the indictment, because her prior conviction was not
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, and
therefore did not qualify as a felony offense. Specifically, Smith
asserts that the district court erred in finding that her June 21,
2004 conviction in North Carolina for possession of cocaine was
punishable by more than one year in prison, and therefore qualified
as a felony drug offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(44) (2000). While
the maximum aggravated punishment for this Class I conviction was
fifteen months’ imprisonment, Smith notes that, based on her
criminal history, and in the absence of aggravating factors, the
maximum sentence she could have received was eight months. Smith
thus maintains that her sentence could not have exceeded a year,
and that this conviction does not qualify as a felony conviction
under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Smith concedes that this argument is foreclosed by our
opinion in United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246-47 (4th Cir.
2005) (holding that United States v. Jones, 195 F.3d 205 (4th Cir.
1999), is still viable after Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296
- 2 -
(2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)), and we
agree. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not
err. See id. at 246 (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 citation
omitted)).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 -