US v. Robert Hubbard

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00157-RDB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999288199].. [13-4181]

Appeal: 13-4181

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/31/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4181

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT HUBBARD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:12-cr-00157-RDB-1)

Submitted:

January 8, 2014

Decided:

January 31, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton,
Appellate Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, H. Brandis Marsh, Jr.,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4181

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/31/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert

Hubbard

appeals

his

fifteen-year

mandatory

minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012) imposed by the
district court after the jury convicted him of being a felon in
possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2012).

On appeal, Hubbard contends that the district court

erred in imposing the sentence, because § 924(e) conflicts with
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) and the sentence was based on facts
that were not charged in the indictment or submitted to the jury
in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

We affirm.

We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness using
an abuse of discretion standard.

United States v. McManus, 734

F.3d 315, 317 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).

A statutorily required sentence is per se

reasonable.

United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th

Cir. 2008).

We review questions of statutory interpretation and

constitutional challenges de novo.

United States v. Under Seal,

709 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).
Hubbard

first

argues

that

the

mandatory

minimum

in

§ 924(e) conflicts with § 3553(a) and that we should interpret
the statutes so that § 3553(a) “trumps” § 924(e).
Courts

must

provisions

and

sentence
purposes

specifically provided.”

defendants
of

§

in

3553(a)

We disagree.

accordance
“[e]xcept

as

18 U.S.C. § 3551(a) (2012).
2

with

the

otherwise
“Thus, the

Appeal: 13-4181

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/31/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

general sentencing provisions in § 3553(a) give way to specific
mandatory sentencing provisions elsewhere in the criminal code.”
United States v. Carter, 696 F.3d 229, 232 (2d Cir. 2012); see
also United States v. Graham, 711 F.3d 445, 455 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 449 (2013); United States v. Robinson,
404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Crittendon,
883 F.2d 326, 331 (4th Cir. 1989).
In his second issue, Hubbard challenges the continued
viability of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224
(1998), and argues that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights
were violated by the district court increasing his statutory
maximum under § 924(e) based on facts that were not charged in
the indictment or submitted to the jury.

However, we remain

“bound by Almendarez-Torres unless and until the Supreme Court
says

otherwise.”

Graham,

711

F.3d

at

455;

see

also

United

States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-54 (4th Cir. 2005).
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3