US v. Almond, No. 07-4301 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4301 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM JEFF ALMOND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00184-D) Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl G. Ivarsson, Jr., COOK, IVARSSON & SHOBER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Jeff Almond pled guilty to an information charging him with unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and distribution of more than five grams of cocaine base (crack), 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000). Almond was sentenced as an armed career criminal, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), to a term of 324 months imprisonment. Almond seeks to appeal his sentence, challenging the district court s decision to give him a weapon enhancement and to deny him an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. his armed career criminal status. He also contests We affirm in part and dismiss in part. Under the terms of his plea agreement, Almond waived his right to appeal whatever sentence is imposed, including issues relating to the establishment of the advisory guideline range. He reserved only the right to appeal from a sentence in excess of the applicable advisory guideline range that is established at sentencing. Paragraph 3 of the plea agreement set out the elements of each offense and, with respect to the § 922(g)(1) count, stated that Almond understood that the statutory maximum for the offense was ten years, but if his criminal history subjected him to the sentencing enhancement of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), then the applicable penalt[y] would be fifteen years to life imprisonment. Almond was advised about the waiver of appeal rights at the guilty plea - 2 - hearing, and our review of the record discloses that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399, 402 (4th Cir. 2000). His challenges to the firearm enhancement and the district court s decision that he had responsibility fall within the scope of the waiver. not accepted We therefore dismiss that portion of the appeal. The government has not asserted the waiver with respect to Almond s contention that he lacks the predicate convictions for an armed career criminal sentence under § 924(e). Consequently, we will consider the issue on the merits. 211 F.3d 88, 90 (4th Cir. 2000). United States v. Brock, Almond had two prior felony convictions for assault and battery, and one felony conviction for breaking and entering his estranged wife s apartment (after which he stole her credit different occasions. cards), all offenses which occurred on The district court determined that the breaking and entering offense constituted burglary for purposes of § 924(e) under Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). Almond acknowledges the Supreme Court s ruling in Taylor, but argues that the interpretation of the law should be different. The district court correctly followed Taylor, and this court may not ignore or overrule Supreme Court precedents, see United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 353 (4th Cir. 2005). Therefore, we conclude that Almond was properly sentenced as an armed career criminal. - 3 - We therefore affirm the district court s judgment, but dismiss Almond s challenge to the court s decisions concerning the firearm enhancement and acceptance of responsibility. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART - 4 -
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.
