Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clark PROCTOR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-06
Citations: 34 F. App'x 902
Docket Number: No. 01-4015
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clark PROCTOR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 34
Pages: 902–903

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clark PROCTOR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4015.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 25, 2002.
Decided May 6, 2002.
Phillip E. Lewis, Matthews Law Firm, Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Thomas R. Ascik, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Clark Proctor, Jr., appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess cocaine base with the intent to distribute and possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841, 846 (West 1999 & Supp.2001). Finding no error, we affirm Proctor's sentence.
Proctor contends his concurrent 360-month sentences are invalid under Ap prendi v. New Jersey, 580 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). However, Proctor's sentence is not above the thirty year statutory maximum of § 841(b)(1)(C) applicable where the defendant has at least one qualifying prior conviction. See United States v. Dinnall, 269 F.3d 418 (4th Cir.2001); United States v. Promise, 255 F.3d 150 (4th Cir.2001) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Sept. 20, 2001) (No. 01-6398). Moreover, contrary to Proctor's contention, Apprendi does not apply to judicial fact finding under the guidelines. United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 199-201 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 937, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 149 L.Ed.2d 316 (2001). Thus, we find Apprendi is not implicated and affirm Proctor'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.