United States v. Markham

204 F. App'x 255
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 26, 2006
Docket06-4441
StatusUnpublished

This text of 204 F. App'x 255 (United States v. Markham) 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. Markham, 204 F. App'x 255 (4th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jerris Leon Markham pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2000). Markham was sentenced to thirty-two months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

Markham contends that his predicate state conviction did not satisfy § 922(g)(1) as a matter of law. He reasons that, under North Carolina law, his maximum sentence was twelve months because no aggravating factors were admitted to or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See North Carolina v. Allen, 359 N.C. 425, 615 S.E.2d 256, 265 (2005) (holding, after Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), statutory maximum is the maximum that a particular defendant can face in light of his criminal history and the facts found by a jury or admitted by defendant). However, Markham concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246-47 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 297, 163 L.Ed.2d 259 (2005), which holds that United States v. Jones, 195 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 1999), is still viable after Blakely and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and reaffirms that a prior North Carolina conviction satisfies § 922(g)(1) if any defendant charged with that crime could receive a sentence in excess of one year. Thus, because it is undisputed that a sentence of over twelve months could be imposed on a defendant convicted of felony possession of a stolen automobile in North Carolina, Markham’s prior conviction was properly considered a predicate felony under § 922(g)(1).

Accordingly, we affirm Markham’s conviction and 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

Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Daryl Lamar Jones
195 F.3d 205 (Fourth Circuit, 1999)
United States v. Johnny Craig Harp
406 F.3d 242 (Fourth Circuit, 2005)
State v. Allen
615 S.E.2d 256 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2005)
Jiayang Hua v. University of Utah
546 U.S. 919 (Supreme Court, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
204 F. App'x 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-markham-ca4-2006.