was given a fifteen-year minimum sentence because he was found to be an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e)(1) (West Supp.2005). On appeal, Smith argues that the district court erred by sentencing him as an armed career criminal in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), because this judicially-imposed sentencing enhancement was neither found by a jury nor admitted by him. Since Smith’s appeal, the Supreme Court has extended the rule of Blakely to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. See 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. Smith’s argument is foreclosed by two of our recent decisions. See United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 282-84 (4th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), petition for cert, filed (Oct. 25, 2005) (No.
holding that sixth amendment not violated when sentence enhanced based on prior convictions that were not charged in indictment or admitted by defendant holding that district court may enhance sentence based on fact of prior convictions under  924e regardless of whether admitted by defendant or found by jury holding that all facts that would enhance the defendants sentence above the statutory maximum must be found by a jury 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 this court reviews a booker issue de novo where the defendant objected in the district court to sentence enhancements based on facts not found by a jury nor admitted by the defendant