Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lee RAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-13
Citations: 209 F. App'x 329
Docket Number: No. 06-4569
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lee RAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 209
Pages: 329–330

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lee RAY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-4569.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 13, 2006.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Ray was sentenced to 180 months in prison upon his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). He now appeals his sentence, claiming that his sentence as an armed career criminal violates the Sixth Amendment because the predicate convictions were neither charged in the indictment nor admitted. This argument fails under controlling Circuit precedent. We have held that prior convictions used as the basis for an armed career criminal sentence need not be charged in the indictment, admitted by the defendant during the plea colloquy, or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-54 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 640, 163 L.Ed.2d 518 (2005). We therefore affirm the 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,
We decline Ray's invitation to reconsider the continued validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which we previously found to remain viable after Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and its progeny. See United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 281-83 (4th Cir.2005), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1463, 164 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006).