UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4470
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JASON BROCK SPENCER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:11-cr-00099-H-1)
Submitted: April 5, 2013 Decided: April 10, 2013
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Scott Holmes, BROCK, PAYNE & MEECE, P.A., Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Brock Spencer appeals the district court’s
judgment imposing a 216-month sentence following his guilty plea
to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and statutory sentencing
enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18
U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006). On appeal, Spencer argues that the
sentence imposed for his § 922(g) conviction * and ACCA
enhancement violates the constitutional prohibition against
double jeopardy. We affirm.
Because Spencer did not raise this challenge in the
district court, our review is for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P.
52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). To
establish plain error, Spencer must demonstrate that 1) there
was error, 2) the error was plain, and 3) the error affected his
substantial rights. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732.
Spencer’s arguments are foreclosed by Supreme Court
and circuit precedent. We previously have concluded that the
ACCA does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and affirmed a
criminal judgment where both the § 922(g) conviction and the
*
Insofar as Spencer fairly contends that § 922(g)(1) itself
violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, we conclude that his
argument is unavailing under the principles established in
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).
2
§ 924(e) enhancement relied on the same prior felonies. See
United States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64, 68 (4th Cir. 1995).
Further, the fact of a prior conviction need not be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. See Almendarez-Torres v. United
States, 523 U.S. 224, 233-36, 243-44 (1998); United States v.
Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 351-54 (4th Cir. 2005) (reaffirming
continued validity of Almendarez-Torres following United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)). This court may not
overrule or ignore Supreme Court precedent. Cheek, 415 F.3d at
353. Nor may a panel of this court overrule precedent set by
another panel. United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558, 564 n.3
(4th Cir. 2010).
Because Spencer demonstrates no error in his
conviction or sentence, plain or otherwise, we affirm the
district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3