that the 1997 conviction qualified as an adult conviction for purposes of a career-offender classification pursuant to § 4B1.1. VII. Graves argues on appeal that the district court violated his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights by considering a juvenile conviction in determining his career-offender status. Graves contends that under the precedent of Roper v. Simmons, 548 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1188, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), which prohibited the execution of juvenile offenders, using his juvenile conviction to impose a career-offender sentence violated evolving standards of decency. Our precedent forecloses Graves’s argument that Supreme Court precedent from Roper precludes the use of juvenile convictions in imposing career offender status on a defendant. See Wilks, 464 F.3d at 1243 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the district court did not err
holding previous convictions can only be used for sentence enhancement purposes under 18 usc  924e1 if the restoration of civil rights regarding such convictions expressly prohibited the possession of firearms holding that unloaded firearms qualify for this enhancement holding that roper did not support a similar postconviction claim and noting that roper contained obiter dictum to the effect that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole remains a permissible sentence for such offenders holding that the imposition of a life sentence on a juvenile does not violate the holding of roper holding that after roper juvenile convictions can qualify as predicate offenses for sentence enhancement purposes