Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04758/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04758-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Lee Gardner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4758

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. (8:06-

cr-00422-PJM)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4758 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/22/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

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. As Gardner concedes, we have rejected

this argument in previous 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

Appeal: 07-4758 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/22/2008 Pg: 2 of 2