also reaffirmed its prior holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that “[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, 543 U.S. at 244-45, 125 S.Ct. at 756 (Stevens, J., opinion of the Court). Alston contends that, under Blakely and Booker, the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by relying on his prior convictions when those convictions were not admitted by him or submitted to a jury. We conclude, however, that his claim is foreclosed by United States v. Thompson, 421 F.Sd 278, 288-86 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>), petition for cert. filed, — U.S.L.W.-(U.S.
holding that fact of prior conviction is not subject to booker requirements that convictions cannot be severed from their essential components including the integral facts such as the statutory violation and date of offense and that these facts are inherent to convictions not extraneous to them holding that the fact of prior convictions under  924e need not be charged in an indictment and proven to a jury and also that the government need not charge in an indictment and prove to a jury that a defendants prior conviction constitutes a violent felony under  924e holding that the nature and occasion of prior offenses are facts inherent in the convictions which government is not required to allege in the indictment or prove beyond a reasonable doubt holding that facts regarding prior convictions need not be charged in an indictment nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt holding that nature and occasion of offenses are facts inherent in convictions and those facts need not be alleged in indictment or submitted to jury