Case ID: f-appx_163/html/0418-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Briawn D. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-2768.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 25, 2006.
    Decided Jan. 26, 2006.
    Rehearing And Rehearing En Banc Denied Feb. 21, 2006.
    Thomas S. Ratcliffe, Office of the United States Attorney, Hammond, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    H. Jay Stevens, Indiana Federal Community Defenders, Inc., South Bend, IN, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, and Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

Briawn Jackson raises two issues on appeal: (1) that an enhancement of his offense level based on a finding of loss amount that was neither proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt nor stipulated to by Jackson violates the ex post facto and due process clauses of the Constitution, and (2) that an increase of his mandatory minimum sentence based on a finding that he brandished a weapon that was neither proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt nor stipulated to by Jackson violates his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and the ex post facto and due process clauses of the Constitution. Jackson concedes that both issues are foreclosed by precedent — the first by United States v. Jamison, 416 F.3d 538 (7th Cir.2005), and the second by Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002); see also United States v. Jones, 418 F.3d 726, 731-32 (7th Cir.2005) — and brings his appeal solely to preserve the issues for presentation to the Supreme Court. We agree that Jackson’s arguments are foreclosed by precedent.

AFFIRMED.