UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4301
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM JEFF ALMOND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00184-D)
Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Carl G. Ivarsson, Jr., COOK, IVARSSON & SHOBER, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States
Attorney, Anne M Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Jeff Almond pled guilty to an information
charging him with unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and distribution of more than
five grams of cocaine base (crack), 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000). Almond
was sentenced as an armed career criminal, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2007), to a term of 324 months imprisonment.
Almond seeks to appeal his sentence, challenging the district
court’s decision to give him a weapon enhancement and to deny him
an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. He also contests
his armed career criminal status. We affirm in part and dismiss in
part.
Under the terms of his plea agreement, Almond waived his
right to appeal “whatever sentence is imposed,” including issues
relating to the establishment of the advisory guideline range. He
reserved only the right to appeal from a sentence in excess of the
applicable advisory guideline range that is established at
sentencing. Paragraph 3 of the plea agreement set out the elements
of each offense and, with respect to the § 922(g)(1) count, stated
that Almond understood that the statutory maximum for the offense
was ten years, but if his criminal history subjected him to “the
sentencing enhancement of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), then the applicable
penalt[y]” would be fifteen years to life imprisonment. Almond was
advised about the waiver of appeal rights at the guilty plea
- 2 -
hearing, and our review of the record discloses that the waiver was
knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399,
402 (4th Cir. 2000). His challenges to the firearm enhancement and
the district court’s decision that he had not accepted
responsibility fall within the scope of the waiver. We therefore
dismiss that portion of the appeal.
The government has not asserted the waiver with respect
to Almond’s contention that he lacks the predicate convictions for
an armed career criminal sentence under § 924(e). Consequently, we
will consider the issue on the merits. United States v. Brock,
211 F.3d 88, 90 (4th Cir. 2000). Almond had two prior felony
convictions for assault and battery, and one felony conviction for
breaking and entering his estranged wife’s apartment (after which
he stole her credit cards), all offenses which occurred on
different occasions. The district court determined that the
breaking and entering offense constituted burglary for purposes of
§ 924(e) under Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990).
Almond acknowledges the Supreme Court’s ruling in Taylor,
but argues that the interpretation of the law should be different.
The district court correctly followed Taylor, and this court may
not ignore or overrule Supreme Court precedents, see United States
v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 353 (4th Cir. 2005). Therefore, we
conclude that Almond was properly sentenced as an armed career
criminal.
- 3 -
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment, but
dismiss Almond’s challenge to the court’s decisions concerning the
firearm enhancement and acceptance of responsibility. 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 4 -