UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4448

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WENDELL RAYNALD COX, JR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:14-cr-00012-WDQ-1)

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Julie L.B. Johnson, OFFICE 

OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Matthew 

K. Hoff, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wendell Raynald Cox, Jr., appeals from the 120-month 

sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in 

possession of a firearm. On appeal, Cox contends that his 

sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court 

did not review documents approved under Shephard v. United 

States, 544 U.S. 13, 17 (2005), in determining that Cox 

qualified as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career 

Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012) (“ACCA”). He also 

argues that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prohibit a judge from 

increasing a statutory maximum sentence when the fact of 

convictions necessary to increase the sentence are not in the 

indictment or submitted to a jury. We affirm.

The Presentence Report stated that Cox qualified for 

increased penalties under the ACCA. The PSR identified the 

three qualifying predicate convictions as Maryland state 

convictions for distribution of heroin, conspiracy to distribute 

heroin, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Cox 

did not file an objection to this designation and he did not 

object to it at sentencing. He also did not raise the 

constitutional challenge to the ACCA designation. We therefore 

review these issues for plain error. United States v. Price, 

777 F.3d 700, 711 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2911 

(2015). 
3

To satisfy plain-error review, Cox must show “that (1) an 

error was committed, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error 

affected [his] substantial rights.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted). An error is plain if, “at the time of appellate 

consideration, . . . the settled law of the Supreme Court or 

this circuit establishes that an error has occurred.” United 

States v. Ramirez-Castillo, 748 F.3d 205, 215 (4th Cir. 2014) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). However, even if Cox makes 

the requisite showing, correction of the error lies within this 

court’s discretion, which it exercises only if “the error 

seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation 

of judicial proceedings.” Price, 777 F.3d at 711 (brackets and 

internal quotation marks omitted). 

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, the PSR materials 

and response, the sentencing transcript and the parties’ 

arguments. We do not ascertain plain error in the district 

court’s designation of Cox as an armed career criminal. In 

addition, Cox’s argument that imposing the ACCA designation

without facts of conviction being decided beyond a reasonable 

doubt is in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, is also 

patently meritless. See Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 

2276, 2288 (2013) (“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 
4

proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (emphasis added); 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (a 

sentencing court may rely on the fact of a prior conviction that 

has not been submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt to enhance a defendant’s sentence).

Accordingly, we affirm Cox’s sentence. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED