Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Franklin SMITH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-08
Citations: 164 F. App'x 453
Docket Number: No. 04-4448
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Franklin SMITH, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 453–454

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Franklin SMITH, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-4448.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2006.
Decided Feb. 8, 2006.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce, Research and Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Franklin Smith, Jr., pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000) and was given a fifteen-year minimum sentence because he was found to be an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e)(1) (West Supp.2005). On appeal, Smith argues that the district court erred by sentencing him as an armed career criminal in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), because this judicially-imposed sentencing enhancement was neither found by a jury nor admitted by him. Since Smith's appeal, the Supreme Court has extended the rule of Blakely to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220,125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Smith's argument is foreclosed by two of our recent decisions. See United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 282-84 (4th Cir.) (holding that district court may enhance sentence based on fact of prior convictions under § 924(e) regardless of whether admitted by defendant or found by jury), petition for cert, filed (Oct. 25, 2005) (No. 05-7266); United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-53 (4th Cir.) (holding that the armed career criminal designation, based on prior convictions, does not violate the Sixth Amendment under Booker), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 640, 163 L.Ed.2d 518 (2005).
Accordingly, we affirm Smith's sentence. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED