Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaac EDWARDS, a/k/a Issac Edwards, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-22
Citations: 505 F. App'x 262
Docket Number: No. 12-4092
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaac EDWARDS, a/k/a Issac Edwards, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 505
Pages: 262–263

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaac EDWARDS, a/k/a Issac Edwards, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-4092.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 17, 2013.
Decided: Jan. 22, 2013.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Martin G. Bahl, Staff Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosen-stein, United States Attorney, H. Brandis Marsh, Jr., Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lee.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Isaac Edwards pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006), to 180 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Edwards challenges the district court's application of the ACCA. We affirm.
We review a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness using the abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir.2010). We review the legal issues involved in statutory interpretation de novo. United States v. Jenkins, 631 F.3d 680, 682 (4th Cir.2011). Edwards first argues that the Maryland statute under which he had previously been convicted does not qualify as a crime of violence for purposes of the ACCA. We have held otherwise. See id. at 685; United States v. Wardrick, 350 F.3d 446, 455 (4th Cir.2003). Edwards next argues that the ACCA is void for vagueness. Again, we have held otherwise. See United States v. Hudson, 673 F.3d 263, 268-69 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 207, 184 L.Ed.2d 106 (2012). These arguments are thus meritless.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.