UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony BURGESS, Defendant-Appellant, 170 F. App'x 275

PER CURIAM: Anthony Burgess appeals his 135-month sentence following his guilty plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). We affirm. On appeal, Burgess first argues that his designation as an armed career criminal for sentencing purposes violates the Sixth Amendment as set forth in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). His argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v.

Thompson, 421 F.3d 278 (4th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1463, 164 L.Ed.2d 250 (2005). Burgess does not dispute he has at least three prior convictions qualifying as “violent felonies” and that they were “committed on occasions different from one another.” See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000). Because the facts necessary to support the enhancement under USSG § 4B1.4(b)(3)(B) “inhere in the fact of conviction,” there is no error under Blakely, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), or their progeny. See Thompson, 421 F.3d at 283, 287 & n. 5; see also United States v.

Cheek, 415 F.3d 349 (4th Cir.2005) (holding that the armed career criminal designation based on prior convictions does not violate Booker), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 640, 163 L.Ed.2d 518 (2005). Burgess also claims that the calculation of his criminal history category violates the Sixth Amendment under Blakely.

This argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker where the Court applied Blakely to the federal sentencing guidelines stating, “[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 756. Accordingly, we affirm Burgess’ conviction and sentence.

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