Case ID: f-appx_181/html/0896-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Thomas STIGE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-13787
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    May 23, 2006.
    
      Peter Birch, Federal Public Defender, West Palm Beach, FL, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Eddie Thomas Stige appeals his 60-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and possess with the intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. Stige asserts the district court violated his due process rights by imposing a mandatory minimum sentence that exceeded the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, violating United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The district court did not err, and we affirm.

We review constitutional errors in sentencing de novo, but will reverse only for harmful error. United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir.2005). “[Cjonstitutional errors are harmless where the government can show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to the defendant’s ultimate sentence.” United States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir.2005).

In Booker, the Supreme Court held “[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 756. The Court also held the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, and district courts should take the Guidelines into account when considering the sentencing factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 757. However, Booker did not declare mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional.

In United States v. Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318, 1320 (11th Cir.1997), we held the five-year mandatory minimum sentence applied in cases involving 100 or more marijuana plants, regardless of weight, controlled over the amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that reduced the weight attributable to a marijuana plant. Additionally, we have consistently held mandatory minimum sentences do not violate a defendant’s due process rights. See e.g., United States v. Holmes, 838 F.2d 1175, 1177 (11th Cir.1988) (holding mandatory minimum sentencing does not deprive the defendant of an individualized sentencing process in violation of due process rights). In United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1333 n. 10 (11th Cir.2005), a post-Booker decision, we noted district courts remain bound by statutory minimum sentences despite Booker’s holding the Sentencing Guidelines are merely advisory. Further, in United States v. Road, 406 F.3d 1322, 1323 n. 1 (11th Cir.2005), we noted the defendant’s sentence for alien smuggling did not violate Booker because the defendant received the mandatory minimum sentence based on the facts to which he pled guilty.

The district court did not err in imposing the mandatory 60-month minimum sentence because Eggersdorf remains good law after Booker. The Supreme Court has not held that mandatory minimum sentences violate the Constitution, and we have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences.

AFFIRMED.