of imprisonment. On appeal, Garcia alleges that he was sentenced in violation of the Sixth Amendment, citing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2581, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). The Blakely opinion has been extended to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Garcia contends that his sentence was improperly enhanced four levels for possessing the gun in connection with another felony under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2003). Garcia, however, has not suffered a Sixth Amendment violation because he was sentenced within the range allowable without the enhancement in question. See United States v. Evans, 416 F.3d 298, 300-01 & n. 4 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). This is because Garcia admitted to the
holding that if sentence does not exceed maximum authorized by facts admitted by defendant or found by jury there is no sixth amendment violation holding that where the defendants sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum and the district court applies the guidelines as advisory the district court does not err by enhancing the defendants sentence based on facts not charged in the indictment or admitted by him holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing holding facts elevating a sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury holding that judge found sentence enhancements mandatorily imposed under the guidelines that result in a sentence greater than that authorized by the jury verdict or facts admitted by the defendant violate the sixth amendments guarantee of the right to trial by jury