US v. Kenneth Lee Gardner, No. 07-4758 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4758 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH LEE GARDNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:06cr-00422-PJM) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Paresh S. Patel, Staff Attorney, Lisa W. Lunt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Emily N. Glatfelter, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Lee Gardner pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and was sentenced as an armed career criminal to the mandatory minimum term of fifteen years imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). Gardner appeals his sentence. We affirm. Gardner argues that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because the predicate convictions were neither admitted by him nor proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. this argument in As Gardner concedes, we have rejected previous decisions. See United States v. Williams, 461 F.3d 441, 452 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 616 (2006); United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 354 (4th Cir. 2005). We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. 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 - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.