Case ID: f-appx_42/html/0629-02.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. George McBRIDE, a/k/a Benzo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4664.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 29, 2002.
    Decided Aug. 7, 2002.
    D. Garrison Hill, Hill & Hill, L.L.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Thomas R. Ascik, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM:

George McBride appeals his conviction and life sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). We affirm.

McBride contends the district court improperly sentenced him as a career offender. We review the district court’s decision to apply the career offender guideline de novo. United States v. Williams, 29 F.3d 172, 173 (4th Cir.1994). A defendant is a career offender if: (1) he is at least eighteen years old when the instant offense was committed; (2) the instant offense is a felony and is either a crime of violence or a drug offense; and (3) he has at least two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence or drug offenses. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (1998). The district court properly determined McBride has two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence. See USSG § 4B1.2, comment (n. 1). Therefore, we find McBride was properly sentenced as a career offender.

Accordingly, we affirm McBride’s conviction and sentence. We deny McBride’s motion to file an informal supplemental brief. 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. 
      
       We note that the issue McBride seeks to assert under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is meritless.