US v. Jason Spencer, No. 12-4470 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4470 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JASON BROCK SPENCER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:11-cr-00099-H-1) Submitted: April 5, 2013 Decided: April 10, 2013 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C. Scott Holmes, BROCK, PAYNE & MEECE, P.A., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jason Brock Spencer appeals the district court s judgment imposing a 216-month sentence following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and statutory sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act ( ACCA ), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) sentence (2006). imposed enhancement for violates double jeopardy. On his the appeal, § 922(g) Spencer argues conviction * constitutional that and prohibition the ACCA against We affirm. Because Spencer did not raise this challenge in the district court, our review is for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). To establish plain error, Spencer must demonstrate that 1) there was error, 2) the error was plain, and 3) the error affected his substantial rights. Spencer s Olano, 507 U.S. at 732. arguments and circuit precedent. are foreclosed by Supreme Court We previously have concluded that the ACCA does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and affirmed a criminal judgment where both the § 922(g) conviction and the * Insofar as Spencer fairly contends that § 922(g)(1) itself violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, we conclude that his argument is unavailing under the principles established in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). 2 § 924(e) enhancement relied on the same prior felonies. United States Further, beyond the a v. Presley, fact of reasonable a 52 F.3d prior doubt. 64, 68 conviction (4th 1995). not be proven Almendarez-Torres See need Cir. See v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 233-36, 243-44 (1998); United States v. Cheek, 415 continued F.3d 349, validity 351-54 of (4th Cir. Almendarez-Torres States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)). overrule or ignore Supreme Court precedent. 353. 2005) (reaffirming following United This court may not Cheek, 415 F.3d at Nor may a panel of this court overrule precedent set by another panel. United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558, 564 n.3 (4th Cir. 2010). Because conviction district or Spencer sentence, court s demonstrates plain judgment. or We no otherwise, dispense with error we in affirm oral his the 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 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.
