UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4727
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMARCUS ANTONIO HUNTLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00243-MR-1)
Submitted: April 29, 2009 Decided: May 18, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Cecilia Oseguera,
FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamarcus Antonio Huntley pled guilty without a plea
agreement to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Because Huntley was
found to be an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)
(2006), he was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum of
180 months in prison. Huntley timely appealed.
Counsel for Huntley filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the district court properly found that Huntley qualified as an
armed career criminal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Huntley argues that the district court erred by
finding that he was an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e) and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.4 (2007)
because his qualifying convictions were consolidated for
sentencing and arose from the same criminal episode. A
defendant is an armed career criminal when he violates
§ 922(g)(1) and has three prior convictions for violent felonies
or serious drug offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Huntley’s
predicate convictions were charged separately, occurred on
different dates in different locations, and involved different
victims. See United States v. Leeson, 453 F.3d 631, 640 (4th
Cir. 2006); United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 284-86 (4th
2
Cir. 2005) (explaining ACCA’s requirement that prior convictions
be “committed on occasions different from one another”). The
fact that the offenses were consolidated for sentencing does not
merge the offenses under the ACCA as “[n]othing in § 924(e) or
the Guidelines suggests that offenses must be tried or sentenced
separately in order to be counted as separate predicate
offenses.” United States v. Samuels, 970 F.2d 1312, 1315 (4th
Cir. 1992). We thus conclude that Huntley possesses the
requisite number of predicate convictions required for an
enhancement and his classification as an armed career criminal
was accordingly proper.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel
inform Huntley, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Huntley
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Huntley.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4