UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5268
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MAURICE ELLIOTT COX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00034-FL)
Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: January 28, 2008
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Diana Pereira, Research and
Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George
E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Banumathi
Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Elliott Cox appeals his 180-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to one count of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(g)(1)
(2000). Cox was sentenced pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000) (“ACCA”). On appeal, Cox contends
his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Cox argues that the sentence imposed by the district
court violated Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), because
he was neither charged with the predicate convictions underpinning
his sentence as an armed career criminal, nor did he admit to them.
Secondly, he argues that the specific findings necessary to trigger
the armed career criminal enhancement, namely whether a defendant’s
predicate offenses were violent felonies or serious drug offenses
and were committed on different occasions, should not be determined
by relying on information in judicial records, but rather should be
determined by a jury. Cox’s first argument is foreclosed by
Shepherd v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 20 (2005), in which the
Supreme Court held that a district court may rely on the fact of a
prior conviction for sentencing purposes. See also United States
v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 354 (4th Cir. 2005). Cox’s second argument
is foreclosed by United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 283 (4th
Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 2005 (2006), in which this court
- 2 -
found that the nature of a particular offense as a violent felony
and the date of a conviction are inherent in the conviction itself
and conclusive judicial records. Id. at 284 n.4, 286. Further,
because one panel of this court may not overrule another, we
decline Cox’s invitation to overrule Thompson. See United States
v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir. 1999). We therefore find no
error in the district court's classification of Cox as an armed
career criminal.
Accordingly, we affirm Cox’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 -