Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian NOLLEY, also known as B-Nolley, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-09
Citations: 83 F. App'x 596
Docket Number: No. 03-10382
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian NOLLEY, also known as B-Nolley, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 83
Pages: 596–596

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian NOLLEY, also known as B-Nolley, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-10382
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 9, 2003.
Linda Marie Dedman, US Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kenneth Wayne Mullen, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brian Nolley appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute mixtures containing cocaine and cocaine base. Nolley's sentence was increased pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) because a firearm was possessed. He argues that the Government's failure to allege his use or possession of a firearm in the indictment rendered his judgment of conviction invalid under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Nolley's Apprendi argument is foreclosed by our holding in United States v. Randle, 304 F.3d 373, 378 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 1748, 155 L.Ed.2d 514 (2003).
Nolley also contends that his judgment of conviction is invalid on the same ground under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). He asserts that, despite contrary language in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), the holding of Harris is suspect in light of Ring. Nolley's arguments regarding Ring and Harris are wholly lacking in merit.
Accordingly, the district court's judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.