UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4063

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BOBBY RAY HUNT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00034-FL-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2010 Decided: December 8, 2010

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul K. Sun, Jr., ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Ray Hunt pleaded guilty to possession of a 

firearm after having previously been convicted of a crime 

punishable by a term exceeding one year of imprisonment, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court 

found that Hunt qualified as an armed career criminal pursuant 

to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006), and sentenced Hunt to the 

statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 180 months. 

Hunt appeals, challenging the finding that he is an armed career 

criminal. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Hunt first argues that the district court erred in 

finding that he was an armed career criminal based on his prior 

North Carolina convictions for possession with intent to deliver 

and delivery of controlled substances. Hunt correctly concedes, 

however, that his argument is foreclosed by our recent decision 

in United States v. McNeill, 598 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2010), 

petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 2, 2010) (No. 10-5258), and

we may not overrule this court’s binding precedent. United 

States v. Simms, 441 F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir. 2006) (“A decision 

of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is 

binding on other panels unless it is overruled by a subsequent 

en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision 

of the Supreme Court.” (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted)). Therefore, this claim fails.
3

Hunt next argues that the district court violated his 

Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by sentencing him above the 

otherwise-applicable statutory maximum based on his prior 

convictions. Again, Hunt correctly concedes that his argument 

is foreclosed by binding Supreme Court precedent. See

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (“Other than 

the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the 

penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must 

be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”); 

see also United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352 (4th Cir.

2005) (“[T]he Sixth Amendment (as well as due process) does not 

demand that the mere fact of a prior conviction used as a basis 

for a sentencing enhancement be pleaded in an indictment and 

submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”). 

Therefore, this claim also fails.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 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