
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Grant Leon TURNER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4047.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 13, 2002.
    Decided June 21, 2002.
    Benjamin D. Porter, Morrow, Alexander, Tash, Kurtz & Porter, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert A. J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    
      Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Grant Leon Turner appeals his convictions and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and retaliating against a witness, victim or informant. On appeal, he argues that (1) the district court erred in publishing to the jury a transcript of a recording admitted into evidence and (2) the district court violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), by sentencing him as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1994) even though the issue of his prior convictions was not submitted to the jury. We affirm.

Whether to allow the use of transcripts to aid in the presentation of tape-recorded evidence is within the district court’s sound discretion. United States v. Collazo, 732 F.2d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir.1984). Here, the transcript was properly authenticated, and the district court appropriately instructed the jury that the transcript was not evidence, that the list of speakers in the transcript was not proof as to the identity of the speakers, and that any inconsistencies between the transcript and the recording should be resolved in favor of the recording. As such, we find no abuse of discretion. Id. (noting that cautionary instructions “cured any prejudice that might have resulted from discrepancies between tape and transcript”); United States v. Clark, 986 F.2d 65, 69 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a transcript of a recording even though defense counsel did not stipulate to its accuracy).

Next, we have recently held that prior convictions that qualify the defendant for an armed career criminal sentence need not be charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216, 220 (4th Cir.2002) (holding that Apprendi did not affect enhanced sentence under § 924(e)). We decline Turner’s invitation to reconsider Sterling.

Accordingly, we affirm Turner’s convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  