UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4176

REGINALD DWAYNE HUNTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem.

James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-95-29)

Submitted: November 21, 1996

Decided: December 9, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Walter T. Johnson, Jr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Clifton T. Barrett,

Assistant United States Attorney, Mark D. Boynton, Third-year Law

Student, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Dwayne Hunter pled guilty to possession of ammunition

by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (1994). He was sentenced

as an armed career criminal to 216 months imprisonment. Hunter

appeals his sentence on that basis. He also appeals the denial of his

motion for a psychological evaluation. We affirm.

Hunter's conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition

satisfied the first prong of the statutory sentencing enhancement under

18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (1994). The second prong requires a defendant

to have three prior convictions of violent felonies or serious drug

offenses that were committed on different occasions.§ 924(e)(1).

Violent felonies are defined in section 924(e)(2)(B).

Hunter's prior convictions satisfy the requirements of this section.

Hunter was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury; he was subject to a term of imprisonment of up to ten

years. See United States v. Thomas, 2 F.3d 79, 81 (4th Cir. 1993),

cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1166 (1994) (aggravated assault under New

Jersey law is violent felony). Hunter was also convicted of two

common-law robberies occurring within two days of each other; each

of these offenses was also subject to a ten-year imprisonment term.

See United States v. Bowden, 975 F.2d 1080, 1082 (4th Cir. 1992),

cert. denied, 507 U.S. 945 (1993) (stating in dicta that North Carolina

common-law robbery is violent felony).

Hunter asserts that because these prior convictions were all adjudicated on the same date they should count as only one conviction. This

contention is without merit. The enhancing statute only requires the

offenses to have been "committed on occasions different from one

another." § 924(e)(1); see United States v. Samuels, 970 F.2d 1312,

1315 (4th Cir. 1992). Hunter's three offenses plainly meet this standard: Hunter committed the assault offense on July 16, 1993, and

committed the robberies (which involved different victims and the use

of different weapons) on July 18, 1993, and July 20, 1993. We therefore find that Hunter's prior convictions satisfied both elements of the

 2
enhancing statute and that he was properly sentenced as an armed

career criminal. We hereby affirm Hunter's conviction and sentence.

Hunter also challenges the district court's denial of his request for

a psychological evaluation. The request was based on a passage

within his presentence report that described certain antisocial behaviors. But Hunter does not allege, neither does the record support the

conclusion, that he lacked the ability to fully understand and appreciate the nature of the charges against him, to comprehend his constitutional rights, or to realize the consequences of his plea. See United

States v. Truglio, 493 F.2d 574, 578 (4th Cir. 1974) (outlining competence requirements when offering guilty plea). Further, in light of the

fact that on two occasions Hunter submitted pro se documents to the

court, in which he asserted that he was of sound mind, the district

court found no credible evidence of incompetence. We therefore find

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hunter's

request for a psychological evaluation. See United States v. West, 877

F.2d 281, 285 n.1 (4th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 493

U.S. 959 (1989). 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

 3