UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4739

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GAVIN RODERICK WHITE, a/k/a Joe White,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CR-97-28)

Submitted: January 10, 2006 Decided: February 1, 2006

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John E. Davidson, DAVIDSON & KITZMANN, Charlottesville, Virginia,

for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Ray B.

Fitzgerald, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1

Under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a), “[a] defendant is a career

offender if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at

the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction;

(2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a

crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the

defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a

crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” U.S.

SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 4B1.1(a) (2005). For purposes of the

career offender enhancement, the term “controlled substance

offense” is defined as “an offense under federal or state law,

punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than one year, that

prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or

dispensing of a controlled substance . . . or the possession of a

2

PER CURIAM:

Gavin Roderick White appeals his 188-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea to one count of possession with the

intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §

841(b)(1)(C). White first argues that the district court erred “in

giving the United States Sentencing Guidelines greater weight than

the other sentencing factors Congress delineated in 18 U.S.C. §

3553" when determining his sentence. (Appellant’s Brief, Statement

of Issues) This argument is without merit. Section 3553(a) of

Title 18 requires a court to consider a number of factors,

including the sentencing guidelines, when setting a defendant’s

sentence. We have independently reviewed the record and find that

the district court committed no error in its consideration of the

§ 3553(a) factors.

White next challenges the district court’s application of the

career offender sentencing enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) based

on numerous prior convictions.1 White does not dispute the fact of
controlled substance . . . with intent to manufacture, import,

export, distribute, or dispense.” U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL §

4B1.2(b) (2005).

The Presentence Investigation Report for White listed fourteen

adult convictions in fourteen years, including one Virginia

conviction for distributing cocaine and a federal conviction for

possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. J.A. 82-84.

3

the prior convictions; rather, he first argues that sentencing

enhancements based on prior convictions should, in general, be

unavailable where the fact of such conviction is neither alleged in

an indictment nor admitted by the defendant. This argument,

however, is foreclosed by United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278,

285-86 (4th Cir. 2005), where we held that a sentencing court does

not violate the Sixth Amendment by applying a guidelines

enhancement based on the fact of a prior conviction so long as the

facts relevant to the enhancement are inherent in the prior

conviction. Thompson makes clear that the universe of facts that

a court can rely on when applying a guidelines enhancement is not

as limited as White suggests.

White next argues that the district court made specific

findings of fact regarding his prior convictions that violate the

Sixth Amendment. This argument is without merit. Our review of

the record indicates that the district court did not engage in any

improper fact-finding in this case. The record before the district

court contained sufficient information regarding White’s prior drug

convictions to justify application of the career offender
2The designation “J.A.” refers to the Joint Appendix filed by

the parties with this appeal.

3

For his state convictions, Mr. White was sentenced to 5 years

with 5 years suspended on one count and 12 years with 4 years

suspended on the second count. J.A. 83. For his federal

conviction, Mr. White was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and

3 years supervised release. J.A. 84. 

4

enhancement without violating the Sixth Amendment. The PreSentence Report indicates that White had been previously convicted

of two controlled substance offenses: (1) two state counts of

distributing cocaine in 1992, and (2) one federal count of

possession with intent to distribute cocaine in 1992. J.A. 83-84.2

Each of these prior convictions qualifies as a “controlled

substance offense” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) because each was

“punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than one year”3

 and

each involved either the distribution of or possession with intent

to distribute a controlled substance. Therefore, we find that the

district court had sufficient information before it to sentence

White as a career offender without engaging in fact-finding that

violates the Sixth Amendment.

Accordingly, we affirm White’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