US v. George Williams, No. 08-4955 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4955 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEORGE ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cr-00158-WO-1) Submitted: April 21, 2009 Decided: May 5, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Arthur Williams pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Based on his prior convictions for felony crimes of violence, Williams was sentenced pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act ( ACCA ), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006), to 180 months of imprisonment. Williams appeals his sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. Williams argues that sentencing him pursuant to the ACCA facts violated his necessary Fifth to and support Sixth the Amendment application rights of the when ACCA neither alleged in the indictment nor admitted by him. the were This court has previously rejected a similar challenge, see United States v. Thompson, establishing circuit 421 F.3d authority 278 (4th binding on Cir. 2005), subsequent thus panels. United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 2005) ( A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless it is overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court. ) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, this claim fails. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. oral argument because the facts 2 and legal We dispense with contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
