UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4888
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO DONTEZ SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00023-F-1)
Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 1, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Cohen, Wilmington, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Antonio Dontez Scott pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2006). He was sentenced to 180 months’
imprisonment. On appeal, Scott argues the court improperly
sentenced him as an armed career criminal career under the Armed
Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006).
Specifically, he maintains that the district court improperly
considered unverified database information as evidence of one of
the predicate prior convictions. We affirm.
This court reviews do novo whether a prior conviction
qualifies as a predicate conviction under the ACCA. United
States v. Williams, 326 F.3d 535, 537 (4th Cir. 2003).
Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
sentencing court continues to make factual findings concerning
sentencing factors by a preponderance of the evidence. United
States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (2005). A sentencing court
may consider any evidence at sentencing that “has sufficient
indicia of reliability.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 6A1.3(a) (2007). We review the district court’s factual
findings at sentencing for clear error. United States v.
Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 223 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct.
743 (2008).
2
At sentencing, the district court considered Scott’s
prior conviction for possession with intent to sell as a
predicate conviction under the ACCA. Scott denied the prior
conviction and argued that it was improperly included in the
presentence report based only on the entry of his FBI number
into the NCIC database. Later in the hearing, the probation
officer produced the judgment of conviction to the court.
Acknowledging there was no contrary evidence, the district court
accepted the judgment and overruled Scott’s objection.
We recognize several other courts have specifically
approved the use of NCIC reports to establish prior convictions.
See United States v. Urbina-Mejia, 450 F.3d 838, 839-40 (8th
Cir. 2006) (approving use of NCIC records to verify state
conviction); see also United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 464
F.3d 1205, 1210-11 (10th Cir. 2006) (approving use of NCIC
reports to establish past convictions and citing unpublished
opinions from Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits
approving same). However, in this case, we find dispositive the
admission into evidence at sentencing of the judgment of
conviction verifying the subject prior conviction. The judgment
provided sufficient information to determine Scott’s armed
career criminal classification. See Shepard v. United States,
544 U.S. 13, 19-21 (2005); see also Farrior, 535 F.3d at 224
(affirming enhanced sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
3
§ 841(b)(1)(A) (2006) where district court relied on defendant’s
formal conviction records to determine nature of prior
conviction).
We therefore find no error in the sentencing court’s
classification of Scott as an armed career criminal. We
accordingly affirm Scott’s conviction and 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
4