his sentence was increased based upon facts that were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not raise this issue in the district court, therefore it is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir.2005). Smith’s base offense level was increased based on the number of firearms involved in the offense. However, these enhancements did not affect the final sentence. It was not plain error for the district court to apply the Sentencing Guidelines in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because Smith was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which determined his Guideline range. Smith’s claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 284-86 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 350
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 nature and occasion of offenses are facts inherent in convictions and those facts need not be alleged in indictment or submitted to jury holding that prior convictions could not be severed from their essential components such as separateness location and dates of of fenses and that therefore no finding of fact is made with respect to these inherent facts holding that prior convictions could not be severed from their essential components and these components include integral facts such as the statutory violation and date of offense therefore these facts were inherent to convictions not extraneous to them holding that moores prior convictions were not admissible to show motive because there was no showing that the acts underlying the prior convictions had a logical tendency to lead to an inference that moore because he committed these prior acts  was motivated to commit the nowcharged crime