Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin TEAGUE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-18
Citations: 68 F. App'x 522
Docket Number: No. 02-4983
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin TEAGUE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 68
Pages: 522–523

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin TEAGUE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4983.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 20, 2003.
Decided July 18, 2003.
Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Brian Steven Cromwell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Teague appeals his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000) conviction and sentence. Teague asserts the submission to the jury of the factual predicate questions underlying his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) enhancement for brandishing or discharging a firearm violated the Supreme Court's decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 559-66, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002). We review this claim de novo. United States v. Mackins, 315 F.3d 399, 406 (4th Cir.2003).
Teague's claim is meritless. While Harris holds that a district court judge is authorized to make factual findings that trigger the imposition of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)'s mandatory mínimums under a preponderance standard, it does not follow that a defendant's rights are violated where, as here, a jury determines the facts underlying the enhancement have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as the court's sentencing power merely flows from the authorization granted by the jury. Harris, 536 U.S. at 559-66, 122 S.Ct. 2406. Moreover, even if Teague could demonstrate error, the error would be harmless. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a); Mackins, 315 F.3d at 405.
Accordingly, we affirm Teague'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.