UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4383
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
QUEDOLTHUIS MIGUEL JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00050-3)
Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark P. Foster, Jr., NIXON, PARK, GRONQUIST & FOSTER, P.L.L.C.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Quedolthuis Miguel Jones appeals his sentence imposed
following a guilty plea to conspiring to commit a robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2000); robbery in violation of §
1951; and using or carrying a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c) (West 2000 and Supp. 2007). Jones was sentenced to 30
months’ imprisonment on the § 1951 violations and an additional 84
months on the § 924(c) violation.
On appeal, Jones asserts that he should have been
sentenced to no more than five years for the § 924(c) violation.
According to Jones, the district court’s enhancement of his
sentence by two years based on a finding that the firearm was
brandished, which was not alleged in the indictment, admitted by
Jones, or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, violated his
Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Jones bases his argument
on Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007), which struck
down California’s determinate sentencing law. However, as Jones
acknowledges, the Supreme Court, in Harris v. United States, 536
U.S. 545 (2002), has already decided this issue adversely to his
position. Accordingly, as the Supreme Court has not overruled
Harris, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See
Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S.
477, 484 (1989). We dispense with oral argument as the facts and
- 2 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -