Unpublished
Unpublished
No. 04-4179
No. 04-4183
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-02-1017)
Submitted:
Decided:
October 4, 2005
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Jimmy Jones appeals his
conviction and sentence for one count of possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(e)
(2000).
district court found Jones did not meet his burden establishing he
did not voluntarily waive counsel.
- 3 -
While
defendant
may
challenge
at
sentencing
the
its findings and find Jones did not meet his burden of proof.
Jones further contends the use of prior convictions not
charged in the indictment, found by a jury or admitted by the
defendant, to increase a sentence is improper under the rule
announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
Jones
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005)
- 4 -
To
(2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect
substantial rights.
If the three
elements of the plain error standard are met, we may exercise our
discretion to notice error only when failure to do so would result
in a miscarriage of justice, such as when the defendant is actually
innocent or the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.
United States v.
Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 555 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
In
Almendarez-Torres,
the
Supreme
Court
held
the
government need not allege in its indictment and need not prove
beyond reasonable doubt that a defendant had prior convictions for
a district court to use those convictions for purposes of enhancing
a sentence.
, 2005 WL 1669398,
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
- 6 -