UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4129

JERRY GLENN JOSHUA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge.

(CR-02-28)

Submitted: July 31, 2003

Decided: September 4, 2003

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Larry W. Shelton,

Supervisory Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, James Ashford

Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Jerry Glenn Joshua, convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm, appeals his 324-month custodial sentence. Joshua

first argues his sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act of

1984, as amended, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000) ("ACCA"), violated

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), as the predicate prior

felony convictions were not listed in his indictment. Second, Joshua

argues the district court erred in calculating his sentence by including

ninety grams of crack possessed by a co-conspirator as part of his relevant conduct. Joshua did not assert either of these claims in the district court. For the following reasons, we find no plain error and

affirm. 

Joshua’s initial assignment of error is easily resolved. With respect

to Joshua’s contention that Apprendi overruled Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (noting prior convictions need not

be an element of an offense in order to trigger enhanced penalties),

this Court has previously considered and rejected this claim. See

United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216, 220 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

536 U.S. 931 (2002). Accordingly, we find no error, plain or otherwise, in Joshua’s sentencing under § 924(e). 

Joshua’s objection to the district court’s attribution of crack possessed by a co-conspirator likewise fails to amount to plain error. In

calculating Joshua’s offense level, the district court adopted, without

objection, the finding in Joshua’s pre-sentence report ("PSR") that

Joshua was responsible for ninety grams of crack produced by an

alleged co-conspirator. 

When a defendant fails to continue at sentencing a prior written

objection to his PSR, review, if any, is limited to plain error. See

United States v. Kingsley, 241 F.3d 828, 835 (6th Cir. 2001); United

2 UNITED STATES v. JOSHUA
States v. Scanga, 225 F.3d 780, 783 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v.

Caba, 955 F.2d 182, 187 (2d Cir. 1992). Joshua’s attorney initially

objected to the attribution, and Joshua’s PSR indicated the objection

must be resolved by factual findings at sentencing. However, at sentencing, defense counsel, without conceding Joshua’s involvement in

a conspiracy, stated that "if the court has heard the evidence and made

a determination based upon the government’s position that my client

was engaged in drug distribution for which he was acquitted by the

jury—we would submit that he was not engaged in drug distribution

—if the court had determined otherwise, there is no need for any evidentiary determination today." (JA 169-70).*

In light of Joshua’s counsel’s concession, we find no plain error in

the attribution of the ninety grams of crack cocaine in question. There

was sufficient, uncontroverted testimony supporting a conclusion that

a tacit arrangement existed between Joshua and his co-conspirator by

which crack supplied by the co-conspirator was distributed to customers brought by Joshua to Joshua’s sister’s house. In light of this

uncontroverted evidence, we find no plain error warranting our correction. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 633 (2002). 

Accordingly, we affirm Joshua’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

*We also note the following exchange: 

THE COURT: We are not into a drug amount determination, because you are not contesting that. 

MR. SHELTON: That’s correct. 

(JA 193-94). 

UNITED STATES v. JOSHUA 3