United States v. Taijuan Deshun Lucas , 181 F. App'x 972 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________                    FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-15621
    June 2, 2006
    Non-Argument Calendar              THOMAS K. KAHN
    ________________________                 CLERK
    D. C. Docket No. 05-00049-CR-CB
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    TAIJUAN DESHUN LUCAS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Alabama
    _________________________
    (June 2, 2006)
    Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Taijuan Lucas appeals his 210-month sentence, which was imposed after he
    pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of
    
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g).     On appeal, Lucas argues that the district court erred by
    enhancing his sentence, pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”),
    based on the court’s finding that he had three qualifying prior convictions under 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e). Lucas asserts that, pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
     (2004), his predicate prior convictions must be admitted by him or proven to a
    jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Lucas acknowledges that the Supreme Court has
    not overruled Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
    , 228 (1998), in
    which the Court held that the government need not allege in the indictment or
    prove beyond a reasonable doubt a defendant’s prior convictions for purposes of
    enhancing a sentence based on those convictions. Lucas also concedes that we
    lack the authority to overrule the Almendarez-Torres decision, but states that he
    raises the issue to preserve it for review in the Supreme Court.       Pursuant to
    Almendarez-Torres and our controlling caselaw, we affirm.
    In Almendarez-Torres, the Supreme Court held that the government is not
    required to allege in its indictment, nor must it prove beyond a reasonable doubt,
    that a defendant had prior convictions in order for a district court to properly use
    those convictions to enhance a sentence.     
    Id.
       The Court went on to hold that
    “neither the statute nor the Constitution requires the Government to charge the
    factor that it mentions, an earlier conviction, in the indictment.” 
    Id. at 226-272
    .
    We have held that Almendarez-Torres “was left undisturbed by Apprendi [v. New
    2
    Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    , 489-90, 
    120 S. Ct. 2348
    , 2362-63, 
    147 L. Ed. 2d 435
     (2000)],
    Blakely[v. Washington], 
    542 U.S. 296
    , 303, 
    124 S. Ct. 2531
    , 2537, 
    159 L. Ed. 2d 403
     (2004)], and [United States v.] Booker[, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 243-44, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    ,
    755-756, 
    160 L. Ed. 2d 621
     (2005)].” United States v. Shelton, 
    400 F.3d 1325
    ,
    1329 (11th Cir. 2005). “Put another way, because the prior-conviction exception
    remains undisturbed after Booker, a district court does not err by relying on prior
    convictions to enhance a defendant’s sentence.” United States v. Orduno-Mireles,
    
    405 F.3d 960
    , 962 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,--- U.S. ----, 
    126 S. Ct. 223
     (2005); see
    also United States v. Gibson, 
    434 F.3d 1234
    , 1246 (11th Cir. 2006) (“In sum,
    under the Supreme Court’s recent precedents neither the Fifth Amendment nor the
    Sixth Amendment prevented the district court from finding the fact of [the
    defendant’s] prior convictions, or using them to designate him a . . . career
    offender.”).
    Given this state of the law, the district court did not err by enhancing
    Lucas’s sentence based on prior convictions not alleged in the indictment.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-15621; D.C. Docket 05-00049-CR-CB

Citation Numbers: 181 F. App'x 972

Judges: Birch, Marcus, Per Curiam, Tjoflat

Filed Date: 6/2/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023