United States v. Pulliam

63 F. App'x 720
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 22, 2003
Docket19-2167
StatusUnpublished

This text of 63 F. App'x 720 (United States v. Pulliam) 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. Pulliam, 63 F. App'x 720 (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*721 PER CURIAM.

Timothy John Pulliam pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(e) (2000). The district court determined that Pulliam qualified as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000), and sentenced him to a total of 182 months imprisonment. He appeals his sentence.

Pulliam asserts that because the predicate convictions under § 924(e) were not alleged in the indictment, the enhanced offense level used to calculate his sentence violates the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We have previously rejected a similar argument, and conclude that Pulliam’s assertion of error is without merit. United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216, 219-20 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 931, 122 S.Ct. 2606, 153 L.Ed.2d 792 (2002).

Accordingly, we affirm Pulliam’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

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Wright v. Merit Systems Protection Board
536 U.S. 931 (Supreme Court, 2002)
United States v. Ricky G. Sterling
283 F.3d 216 (Fourth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 F. App'x 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pulliam-ca4-2003.