UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4356
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL KEITH HAWKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00436-TDS-1)
Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton B. Shoaf, Jr., Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Randall S. Galyon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Keith Hawkins pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006), and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006). The district court sentenced Hawkins to
the mandatory minimum term of 120 months’ imprisonment on the
drug conviction followed by a mandatory, consecutive sixty-month
term of imprisonment on the firearm conviction. Hawkins appeals
the district court’s imposition of the consecutive sentence.
On appeal, Hawkins argues that the district court
erred in imposing the consecutive sentence under § 924(c)
because he received a greater minimum sentence for the drug
conviction. Hawkins’s argument is foreclosed by the Supreme
Court’s recent decision in Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S.
___, 131 S. Ct. 18 (2010). In Abbott, the Court held that
§ 924(c) subjects a defendant to a mandatory, consecutive
sentence regardless of whether the defendant also receives a
greater mandatory minimum sentence on a different count of
conviction. Abbott, 131 S. Ct. at 23. Therefore, Hawkins’s
sentence is not subject to attack on the ground that he asserts.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3