Case ID: f-appx_63/html/0744-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff Appellee, v. Mary Ann ALLEN, Defendant Appellant.
    No. 03-4144.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2003.
    Decided May 27, 2003.
    
      Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Mary Ann Allen pleaded guilty to possessing firearms as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). She was sentenced to eighty-four months incarceration, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

On appeal, Allen asserts that her constitutional rights were violated, and that her sentence was improper, because her offense level was increased based on facts that were not alleged in the indictment or proven to a jury. In reviewing a district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines, this Court reviews factual determinations for clear error, legal questions de novo, and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under a standard that gives due deference to the district court. United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1003 (4th Cir.1996). Allen’s claim is meritless because Allen cannot establish her eighty-four month sentence violated the 120 month statutory maximum she faced. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2000); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); United States v. Obi, 239 F.3d 662, 667 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 835, 122 S.Ct. 86, 151 L.Ed.2d 49 (2001); United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 201-02 (4th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 937, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 149 L.Ed.2d 316 (2001).

Accordingly, we affirm Allen’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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.