United States v. Charles Christopher Roundtree , 256 F. App'x 291 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 27, 2007
No. 07-12616 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00343-CR-J-33-TEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES CHRISTOPHER ROUNDTREE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(November 27, 2007)
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Christopher Roundtree appeals his 180-month sentence, arguing that
the district court’s decision to sentence him as an armed career criminal, without
his admitting, or a jury finding, that he had three prior violent felony convictions,
was unconstitutional. He concedes that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Apprendi
v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), Blakely v.
Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), and United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2005) except
the fact of a prior conviction from the Sixth Amendment requirement that “any fact
that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum
must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi,
530 U.S. at 490, 120 S. Ct. at 2362-63.
Roundtree also concedes that he failed to preserve the issue below. When a
defendant fails to preserve an issue below, we review for plain error. United
States v. Martinez, 407 F.3d 1170, 1173 (11th Cir. 2005).
“The Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1),
provides a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years for anyone who violates
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)1 after three convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug
offense.” United States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267, 1269 (11th Cir. 2006). In
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219, 140 L. Ed. 2d
1Section 922(g) prohibits possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
2
350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that a prior conviction is not a fact that must
be alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. United
States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005). The Court’s subsequent
seminal decisions in Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker have not disturbed the holding
of Almendarez-Torres. Id. Although Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125
S. Ct. 1254, 161 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2005) “may arguably cast doubt on the future
prospects of Almendarez-Torres’s holding regarding prior convictions, the
Supreme Court has not explicitly overruled Almendarez-Torres. As a result, we
must follow Almendarez-Torres.” United States v. Camacho-Ibarquen, 410 F.3d
1307, 1316 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
As Roundtree acknowledges in his brief, his arguments are contrary to our
precedent. Thus, the district court did not err, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3