UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4250
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALONZO BRISCOE, a/k/a Larwar Jackson, a/k/a
Joshua Kelly,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:05-cr-00093-RDB)
Submitted: October 27, 2006 Decided: November 14, 2006
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Martin G. Bahl, Staff
Attorney, Joanna Silver, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Michael C. Hanlon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alonzo Briscoe appeals his sentence to 204 months in
prison and five years of supervised release after a jury convicted
him of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). On appeal, Briscoe contends the
district court violated the Sixth Amendment by sentencing him as an
armed career criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000) and
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.4 (2005), because his prior
convictions were neither charged in the indictment nor proven to
the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.
We will affirm the sentence imposed by the district court
as long as it is within the statutorily prescribed range and is
reasonable. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005).
An error of law or fact can render the sentence unreasonable.
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). In considering whether a sentence is
unreasonable, we review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2006).
On appeal, Briscoe does not challenge the existence of
his prior convictions or their qualification as predicate offenses
under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Rather, he argues that the Supreme
Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.
224 (1998), has been effectively overruled. We have rejected this
- 2 -
argument. See United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 640 (2005).
Accordingly, we affirm Briscoe’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 -