UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5151
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS EDWARD FIELDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cr-00241-CCB-2)
Submitted: October 13, 2010 Decided: October 28, 2010
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas J. Saunders, LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS J. SAUNDERS, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Edward Fields appeals the 188-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of
cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). We affirm.
On appeal, Fields challenges the district court’s
consideration of a prior felony conviction when determining his
career offender status and criminal history category. However,
the sentencing court properly declined to address Fields’
challenge to the validity of a prior state felony conviction, as
the federal sentencing proceeding was not the appropriate forum
for such a challenge. See Custis v. United States, 511 U.S.
485, 496-97 (1994); United States v. Dean, 604 F.3d 169, 174-75
(4th Cir. 2010). Moreover, even if Fields succeeded in
invalidating one prior state felony conviction, he had at least
two other prior felony convictions qualifying him as a career
offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(a)
(2007). United States v. Pettiford, 612 F.3d 270, 276-77 (4th
Cir. 2010). Furthermore, the court properly calculated Fields’
criminal history category at VI under USSG § 4B1.1(b).
Accordingly, we affirm Fields’ sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3