United States v. Thomas C. Goodfellow , 223 F. App'x 521 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 06-2560
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Western District of Missouri.
    Thomas Charles Goodfellow,              *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 27, 2007
    Filed: May 7, 2007
    ___________
    Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Thomas Charles Goodfellow (Goodfellow) pled guilty to bank robbery, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2113
    (a). Designating him as a career offender, see U.S.S.G.
    § 4B1.1, the district court1 sentenced Goodfellow to 151 months’ imprisonment and
    3 years’ supervised release.
    Goodfellow now argues, as he did below, that the enhancement of his sentence
    based on previous convictions that were neither charged in the indictment, nor proved
    1
    The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
    Court for the Western District of Missouri.
    to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, violated the Sixth Amendment. Upon our de
    novo review, see United States v. Buckner, 
    894 F.2d 975
    , 978 (8th Cir. 1990) (de
    novo review of constitutional issues), we find this argument unavailing. See
    Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
    , 246 (1998) (holding sentence-
    enhancing previous convictions need not be proved to jury); see, e.g., United States
    v. Perry, 
    437 F.3d 782
    , 786 (8th Cir. 2006) (rejecting Sixth Amendment challenge to
    district court's determination defendant had two previous controlled-substance
    offenses); United States v. Torres-Alvarado, 
    416 F.3d 808
    , 810 (8th Cir. 2005)
    (stating “we are bound by Almendarez-Torres until the Supreme Court explicitly
    overrules it”).
    We affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -2-