Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Shawntay Lakeith SWANN, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-16
Citations: 296 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 07-4531
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Shawntay Lakeith SWANN, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 296
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Shawntay Lakeith SWANN, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 07-4531.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2008.
Decided: Oct. 16, 2008.
James R. Saunders, Harrington, Saunders & Jones, P.A., Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, David P. Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Shawntay Lakeith Swann appeals his life sentence entered pursuant to his convictions for distribution of crack cocaine. The Government filed two Informations of Prior Conviction, one prior to voire dire of the jury and one after voire dire had begun but prior to the jury being sworn. Swann asserts that he did not receive timely notice of the second conviction, as required by 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000). However, because this issue was not raised at trial, it is reviewable only for plain error. United States v. Beasley, 495 F.3d 142,148 (4th Cir.2007), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 1471, 170 L.Ed.2d 296 (2008). Moreover, Swann's claim is foreclosed by our decision in Beasley that a district court that accepts an § 851 information after the jury was selected but before it was sworn has not plainly erred. Id. at 149-50. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Swann's motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. 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.