Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    United States v. Michael Rouse, JR., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Michael Rouse's 212-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court held that Rouse's prior North Carolina convictions for breaking and entering qualified as predicate offenses for an armed career criminal sentencing enhancement, even though plea agreements limited the sentences to less than one year. The court also held that enhancing Rouse's sentence based on prior convictions not presented to a jury was permissible under Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Michael Rouse, JR., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    67 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Michael Rouse's 212-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court held that Rouse's prior North Carolina convictions for breaking and entering qualified as predicate offenses for an armed career criminal sentencing enhancement, even though plea agreements limited the sentences to less than one year. The court also held that enhancing Rouse's sentence based on prior convictions not presented to a jury was permissible under Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-12-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4240

    Original Title

    United States v. Michael Rouse, Jr., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Michael Rouse's 212-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court held that Rouse's prior North Carolina convictions for breaking and entering qualified as predicate offenses for an armed career criminal sentencing enhancement, even though plea agreements limited the sentences to less than one year. The court also held that enhancing Rouse's sentence based on prior convictions not presented to a jury was permissible under Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    67 views4 pages

    United States v. Michael Rouse, JR., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Michael Rouse's 212-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court held that Rouse's prior North Carolina convictions for breaking and entering qualified as predicate offenses for an armed career criminal sentencing enhancement, even though plea agreements limited the sentences to less than one year. The court also held that enhancing Rouse's sentence based on prior convictions not presented to a jury was permissible under Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4240

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MICHAEL WAYNE ROUSE, JR.,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at New Bern.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (4:13-cr-00034-F-1)

    Submitted:

    November 21, 2014

    Decided:

    December 16, 2014

    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,


    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.
    Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
    P. May-Parker, Shailika K. Shah, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Wayne Rouse, Jr., appeals the 212-month armed
    career criminal sentence imposed by the district court pursuant
    to

    18

    U.S.C.

    924(e)

    (2012)

    following

    his

    guilty

    plea

    to

    possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18


    U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2012).

    On appeal, Rouse contends that the

    district court erred in enhancing his sentence on the basis of


    his prior state breaking-and-entering convictions.

    Rouse also

    contends that the court erred in enhancing his sentence on the


    basis

    of

    submitted

    facts

    that

    to

    jury,

    Amendment rights.
    Rouse

    were
    in

    not

    charged

    violation

    in

    of

    the

    his

    indictment

    Fifth

    and

    or

    Sixth

    Finding no error, we affirm.

    first

    asserts

    that

    his

    armed

    career

    criminal

    designation was based on improper predicate felony convictions.


    Specifically,

    Rouse

    asserts

    that

    his

    breaking-and-entering

    convictions cannot serve as predicate felony convictions because


    a plea agreement limited the sentence for each conviction to one
    year or less in prison.

    We disagree.

    We review de novo the question whether a prior state


    conviction

    constitutes

    predicate

    felony

    purposes of a federal sentence enhancement.


    Valdovinos,

    760

    F.3d

    322,

    325

    (4th

    Cir.

    conviction

    for

    United States v.

    2014).

    states

    sentencing regime, not a plea agreement, determines whether a

    defendants conviction is punishable by imprisonment exceeding a


    year and so qualifies as a federal sentencing predicate.
    at 326.

    Id.

    Here, as Rouse acknowledges, the breaking-and-entering

    convictions carried a maximum presumptive sentence of fourteen


    months

    under

    North

    Carolinas

    structured

    sentencing

    regime.

    That a plea agreement negotiated the sentences to ten to twelve


    months is uncontrolling.
    Second,

    Rouse

    contends

    that

    the

    district

    court

    violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by enhancing his


    sentence on the basis of prior convictions that were not alleged
    in the indictment, submitted to a jury, or admitted by Rouse.
    This claim, as Rouse acknowledges, is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres

    v.

    United

    States,

    523

    U.S.

    224,

    228-35

    (1998).

    See

    United States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115, 124 (4th Cir.) (stating
    that Almendarez-Torres remains good law), petition for cert.
    filed,

    __

    U.S.L.W.

    __

    (U.S.

    June

    16,

    2014)

    (No.

    13-10640);

    United States v. Graham, 711 F.3d 445, 455 (4th Cir.) ([W]e are
    bound by Almendarez-Torres unless and until the Supreme Court
    says otherwise.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 449 (2013).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like