
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Shawn ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4906.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 31, 2001.
    Decided Aug. 22, 2001.
    
      Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, NC, for appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Interim United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, J. Frank Bradsher, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Robertson pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000). He received an enhanced sentence as an armed career criminal under 18 U .S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000) based on three prior felony convictions. On appeal, Robertson claims that, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court erred in sentencing him under § 924(e) where the indictment charged him under § 922(g), which carries a maximum penalty of ten years.

However, in Apprendi, the Supreme Court expressly declined to overrule Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that prior felony convictions are mere sentence enhancements and not elements of an offense. See also United States v. Skidmore, 254 F.3d 635 (7th Cir.2001) (holding that enhanced sentence under § 924(e) did not violate Apprendi where defendant had requisite three prior felony convictions); United States v. Dorris, 236 F.3d 582, 586-88 (10th Cir.2000) (same), cert. denied, 69 U.S.L.W. 3672 (U .S. April 16, 2001) (No. 00-8937); United States v. Mack, 229 F.3d 226, 235 n. 12 (3d Cir.2000) (same), cert. denied, 69 U.S.L W. 3739 (U.S. May 21, 2001).

Accordingly, we affirm Robertson’s 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.  