UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4092
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ISAAC EDWARDS, a/k/a Issac Edwards,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00497-JFM-1)
Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Martin G. Bahl, Staff
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, H. Brandis Marsh, Jr.,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Isaac Edwards pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was
sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18
U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006), to 180 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
Edwards challenges the district court’s application of the ACCA.
We affirm.
We review a sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness using the abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn,
592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). We review the legal issues
involved in statutory interpretation de novo. United States v.
Jenkins, 631 F.3d 680, 682 (4th Cir. 2011). Edwards first
argues that the Maryland statute under which he had previously
been convicted does not qualify as a crime of violence for
purposes of the ACCA. We have held otherwise. See id. at
685; United States v. Wardrick, 350 F.3d 446, 455 (4th Cir.
2003). Edwards next argues that the ACCA is void for vagueness.
Again, we have held otherwise. See United States v. Hudson, 673
F.3d 263, 268-69 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 207
(2012). These arguments are thus meritless.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3