US v. Kenneth Lee Gardner
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH LEE GARDNER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:06cr-00422-PJM)
January 17, 2008
January 22, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Paresh S. Patel, Staff Attorney, Lisa W. Lunt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Emily N. Glatfelter, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Kenneth Lee Gardner pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and was sentenced as an armed career criminal to the mandatory minimum term of fifteen years imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). Gardner appeals his sentence. We affirm.
Gardner argues that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because the predicate convictions were neither admitted by him nor proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. this argument in As Gardner concedes, we have rejected decisions. See United States
v. Williams, 461 F.3d 441, 452 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 616 (2006); United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 354 (4th Cir. 2005). We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. 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
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?