United States v. Hunt

169 F. App'x 171
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 1, 2006·No. 05-4614·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Dwight Hunt pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000), and was sentenced to a fifteen-year minimum sentence because he was found to be an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (West Supp.2005). On appeal, Hunt argues that the district court erred by sentencing him as an armed career criminal in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because this judicially-imposed sentencing enhancement was neither found by a jury nor admitted by him. We affirm.

Hunt’s argument is foreclosed by two of our recent decisions. See United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 282-84 (4th Cir.) (holding that district court may enhance sentence based on fact of prior convictions under § 924(e) regardless of whether admitted by defendant or found by jury), petition for cert, filed (Oct. 25, 2005) (No. 05-7266); United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-53 (4th Cir.) (holding that the armed career criminal designation, based on prior convictions, does not violate the Sixth Amendment under Booker), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 640, 163 L.Ed.2d 518 (2005).

Accordingly, we affirm Hunt’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

United States v. Hunt, 169 F. App'x 171 (4th Cir. 2006).

169 F. App'x 171 (United States v. Hunt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Cecil Eugene Cheek
415 F.3d 349 (Fourth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Tony Lee Thompson
421 F.3d 278 (Fourth Circuit, 2005)