UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4466

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LAWRENCE DOE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00128-MR-DLH-1)

Submitted: January 23, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric J. Foster, LAW OFFICE OF RICK FOSTER, Asheville, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States 

Attorney, Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Doe, Jr., pled guilty to possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1) (2012). The district court found that Doe qualified 

for sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) and 

sentenced him to 180 months in prison. Doe appeals, claiming 

that he lacked the requisite number of prior convictions to be 

sentenced under the ACCA. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm.

 In considering a district court’s determination that a 

defendant is an armed career criminal, we review factual 

findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. United 

States v. Wardrick, 350 F.3d 446, 451 (4th Cir. 2003). Doe 

argues that, under Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 

(2013), and related cases, the district court erroneously 

determined that he had at least three prior convictions for 

burglaries committed on occasions different from one another. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (2012); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 4B1.4(a) (2013). 

 Descamps, however, does not aid Doe. First it was 

permissible for the district court to determine that he had the 

requisite prior convictions. In this regard, Descamps did not 

overrule Almendarez–Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228–

35 (1998), which held that the fact of a prior conviction that 
3

may increase a penalty may be found by the district court and

does not need to be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt. The Almendarez-Torres opinion remains 

authoritative. See United States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115, 124 

(4th Cir. 2014) (stating that “Almendarez–Torres remains good 

law”), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. June 16, 

2014) (No. 13–10640); United States v. Graham, 711 F.3d 445 (4th 

Cir.) (“[W]e are bound by Almendarez–Torres unless and until the 

Supreme Court says otherwise.”), cert. denied 134 S. Ct. 449 

(2013).

Moreover, our review of indictments and related 

documents discloses that Doe had at least three qualifying 

convictions that occurred on different occasions and arose out 

of separate and distinct criminal episodes. See United States 

v. Hobbs, 136 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 1998); United States v. 

Letterlough, 63 F.3d 332, 335 (4th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we 

affirm Doe’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