Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04892/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04892-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James William Gaston
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4892

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES WILLIAM GASTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00087-RJC)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 4, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David G. Belser, BELSER & PARKE, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney,

Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States

Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4892 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/04/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James William Gaston was convicted, following a jury

trial, of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine

and cocaine base, three counts of possession with intent to

distribute cocaine base, and possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon. Based on his prior convictions for either violent or drug

trafficking felonies, as noticed by the 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000)

information filed by the government, Gaston was found to be an

armed career criminal. The district court imposed a life sentence

as mandated by 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 851 (2000). Gaston

appeals his sentence, arguing that his constitutional rights were

violated because his sentence was increased based on a prior

conviction not alleged in the indictment, found by the jury, or

stipulated to by him. We affirm.

Gaston concedes that the Supreme Court ruled, in

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), that the

penalty provision of a statute enhancing a sentence based on

recidivism is not an element of the crime and prior convictions

need not be alleged in the indictment and found by the jury.

However, he contends that Almendarez-Torres was called into

question by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny and should no longer be

considered binding precedent. Although Apprendi expressed some

uncertainty regarding the future vitality of Almendarez-Torres, we

Appeal: 07-4892 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/04/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

subsequently concluded that Almendarez-Torres was not overruled by

Apprendi, and remains the law. United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d

216, 220 (4th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d

349, 352-53 (4th Cir. 2005) (reaffirming continuing validity of

Almendarez-Torres after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005)). We therefore conclude that Gaston’s claim is without

merit. Moreover, as this court noted in Cheek, even if we were to

agree with Gaston’s forecast that the Supreme Court will overrule

Almendarez-Torres, “we are not free to overrule or ignore the

Supreme Court’s precedents.” Cheek, 415 F.3d at 352-53 (citing

State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997) (“[I]t is [the

Supreme] Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its

precedents.”)).

Accordingly, we affirm Gaston’s 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-4892 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/04/2008 Pg: 3 of 3