Summary
finding that Defendant's five convictions for second degree burglary under S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-312 were qualifying predicate felonies for ACCA status
Summary of this case from Adams v. United StatesOpinion
No. 14-4635
03-18-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRANDON ORLANDO BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Benjamin Neale Garner, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:13-cr-01088-RBH-1) Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Benjamin Neale Garner, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Brandon Orlando Brown pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012), and was sentenced as an armed career criminal to 180 months in prison. He appeals, arguing that his five convictions for second degree burglary under S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-312(A) do not qualify as predicate felonies for armed career criminal status. We have held that a conviction under § 16-11-312(A) is such a qualifying felony. United States v. Wright, 594 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2010). "[W]e are bound by prior precedent from other panels in this circuit absent contrary law from an en banc or Supreme Court decision." United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir. 1999). There is no such contrary law. Accordingly, we find no merit to Brown's claim, and we affirm.
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