We have had the benefit of oral argument in this case. We have 'considered the briefs and those parts of the record that are relevant. We conclude that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

With respect to Franks’ argument that his prior strong arm convictions do not qualify as “violent felonies” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B), we affirm. We note that the only challenge to the status of these prior convictions that Franks asserted in the district court was an argument that they did not qualify because they may have involved only the taking of money or other property from the person of another when in the course of the taking the victim was “put in fear.” Franks has abandoned that argument on appeal. For the first time on appeal, Franks asserts an entirely new challenge to the “violent felony” status of his four prior strong arm robbery *896 convictions. We entertain Franks’ new argument only pursuant to the plain error analysis. 1 For the reasons fully discussed at oral argument, it is clear that Franks’ suggestion of error is far from obvious. Indeed, we have considerable doubt that Franks’ new argument enjoys even arguable merit. See Montsdoca v. State, 84 Fla. 82, 93 So. 157, 159 (1922). We need not address other issues to conclude that the district court did not err in treating Franks’ four prior strong arm convictions as “violent felonies” and considering Franks to be an armed career criminal under § 924(e).

Franks’ other argument, relating to Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is foreclosed by binding precedent, and therefore clearly does not rise to the level of plain error.

AFFIRMED.