Lattimore appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Lattimore’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the issue of whether Lattimore’s sentence violated Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Lattimore filed a pro se supplemental brief, contending that his right to confront witnesses was violated. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Lattimore first asserts that the district court’s conclusion that he was a career offender violated Blakely. This claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 521-23 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d
holding that the armed career criminal designation based on prior convictions does not violate the sixth amendment under booker holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing under the acca even though convictions were neither charged in indictment nor admitted holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing as career offender holding that the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes need not be proved to a jury or admitted by defendant to satisfy the sixth amendment