USA v. Sparkman

Filing

USA v. Sparkman

Doc. 0

Case: 09-60006

Document: 00511179830

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/20/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60006 S u m m a r y Calendar July 20, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N I T E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f - A p p e lle e v. C H A R L E S EDWARD SPARKMAN, also known as Edward Charles Sparkman, a ls o known as Popa Charlie, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Mississippi U S D C No. 3:06-CR-200-1

B e fo r e JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* C h a r le s Edward Sparkman was convicted of being a felon in possession o f a firearm. United States v. Sparkman, 289 F. App'x 12, 13 (5th Cir. 2008), c e r t. denied, 129 S. Ct. 939 (2009). We affirmed Sparkman's conviction but rem a n d ed the case for resentencing because Sparkman had not been adequately w a r n e d about the disadvantages of representing himself at sentencing. Id. On r e m a n d , Sparkman was represented by counsel and sentenced to 294 months

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-60006

Document: 00511179830 Page: 2 No. 09-60006

Date Filed: 07/20/2010

o f imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release. Sparkman now a p p e a ls that sentence. S p a r k m a n was sentenced as an armed career criminal pursuant to 18 U .S .C . § 924(e). He argues that neither his 1990 conviction for armed robbery, h is 1984 conviction for house burglary, nor his 1988 conviction for burglary of an o c c u p ie d dwelling were violent felonies that qualified as predicate convictions for t h e enhancement. Because Sparkman concedes that he has two other such p r e d ic a t e convictions, the enhancement was appropriate if any one of the three c o n v ic t io n s at issue was a qualifying conviction. See § 924(e). Employing a c a t e g o r ic a l approach, see Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602 (1990), and lo o k in g only to the documents approved by Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 1 3 , 16 (2005), we conclude that each of the challenged convictions was a q u a lify in g predicate conviction that supported the enhancement. See Taylor, 4 9 5 U.S. at 598, 602. S p a r k m a n 's brief includes additional arguments that the district court e r r e d in applying offense level enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 and 3C1.1 because the facts supporting those enhancements had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. However, because Sparkman's sentence was the r e s u lt of the armed career criminal enhancement, the district court's d e t e r m in a t io n s with respect to the § 2K2.1 and § 3C1.1 enhancements are ir r e le v a n t . Accordingly, we do not reach these arguments. A F F IR M E D .

2