United States v. Fultz

60 F. App'x 493
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 7, 2003
Docket02-4977
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 F. App'x 493 (United States v. Fultz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Fultz, 60 F. App'x 493 (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Tyrone Fultz appeals his 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000), and possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000). We affirm.

Fultz contends Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (holding any fact, other than *494 prior conviction, that increases criminal penalty beyond prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to jury and proved beyond reasonable doubt), requires sentencing factors such as career offender status be alleged in the indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We have previously held sentencing factors are not required to be alleged in the indictment or submitted to the jury. Fultz was sentenced within the statutory maximum, and Apprendi does not apply. See United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 200 (4th Cir.2000).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Fultz’s 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fultz v. United States
540 U.S. 856 (Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 F. App'x 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-fultz-ca4-2003.