United States v. Dijon Renard Jasmin , 294 F. App'x 545 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
September 25, 2008
No. 08-10692 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00218-CR-J-32-HTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DIJON RENARD JASMIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 25, 2008)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dijon Renard Jasmin appeals his 180-month sentence for possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. Jasmin’s sole contention is that in finding he
qualified as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and U.S.S.G. §
4B1.4, the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by considering prior
convictions that were neither admitted by him nor found by a jury. Jasmin
concedes that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219,
140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), forecloses his challenge. He argues, however, that later
Supreme Court decisions seem to have called into question the holding in
Almendarez-Torres and raises his objection in order to preserve it for further
review in the event that the Supreme Court overrules Almendarez-Torres.
The objection is duly noted and preserved in case the Supreme Court
changes the law in the future. In the meantime, we have to follow the law on this
issue as it is. United States v. Camacho-Ibarquen, 410 F.3d 1307, 1316 n.3 (11th
Cir. 2005); United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005); see
also Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236, 252-53, 188 S.Ct. 1969, 1978 (1998)
(instructing that Supreme Court “decisions remain binding precedent until [it]
see[s] fit to reconsider them, regardless of whether subsequent cases have raised
doubts about their continuing vitality”).
AFFIRMED.
2