Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Sherrill McKEITHAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-13
Citations: 22 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 01-4443
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Sherrill McKEITHAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 279–280

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Sherrill McKEITHAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4443.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 15, 2001.
Decided Dec. 13, 2001.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, NC, for appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, J. Frank Bradsher, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Bobby Sherrill McKeithan pled guilty to a criminal information charging him with possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (West 2000). The district court determined that McKeithan was an armed career criminal, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000), and sentenced him to a 180 month term of imprisonment. McKeithan appeals his sentence.
McKeithan contends that his sentence as an armed career criminal under § 924(e) is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We conclude, however, that Apprendi does not apply to McKeithan's enhanced sentence under § 924(e) because it is based on his prior convictions, a factor that was specifically excluded from the holding of Apprendi. Contrary to McKeithan's assertions, Apprendi expressly declined to revisit the holding of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), that prior felony convictions are merely sentencing enhancements, rather than elements of the offense. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 488-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; see also United States v. Skidmore, 254 F.3d 635, 642 (7th Cir.2001) (holding that Apprendi does not affect enhanced sentence under § 924(e)); United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 1028, 1035 (11th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 2616, 150 L.Ed.2d 770 (2001); United States v. Dorris, 236 F.3d 582, 586-88 (10th Cir.2000) (same), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 1635, 149 L.Ed.2d 495 (2001); United States v. Mack, 229 F.3d 226, 235 n. 12 (3d Cir.2000) (same), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 2015, 149 L.Ed.2d 1016 (2001).
We therefore affirm McKeithan's conviction and 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.