required courts to impose sentencing enhancements based on facts found by the court by a preponderance of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment. 543 U.S. at 225-28, 233-34, 125 S.Ct. at 746, 750 (Stevens, J., opinion of the Court). The Court remedied the constitutional violation by severing two statutory provisions, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(b)(1) (West Supp.2005) (requiring sentencing courts to impose a sentence within the applicable guideline range), and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005) (setting forth appellate standards of review for guideline issues), thereby making the guidelines advisory. Booker, 543 U.S. at 244-65, 125 S.Ct. at 756-67 (Breyer, J., opinion of the Court). The Supreme 25, 2005) (No. 05-7266), and United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 350-51 (4th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 640, 163
holding that the armed career criminal designation based on prior convictions does not violate the sixth amendment under booker holding that application of armed career criminal enhancement falls within exception for prior convictions where facts were undisputed making it unnecessary to engage in further fact finding about a prior conviction holding a sentence enhancement for two prior convictions must be based on separate criminal episodes 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 armed career criminal act holding that a conviction for florida armed robbery is a crime of violence under the armed career criminal act