Case ID: f-appx_148/html/0888-01.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. Frederick Lawrence SNYDER, Jr., a.k.a. William Ball, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-10053
    D.C. Docket No. 03-00223-CR-J-12TEM.
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Sept. 15, 2005.
    
      Peggy Morris Ronca, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Oliver David Barksdale, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HULL, MARCUS and KRAYITCH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-appellant Frederick Lawrence Snyder pleaded guilty to manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The government gave notice that Snyder was subject to an enhanced ten-year mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851 based on his prior conviction for possession of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1), 851. Snyder challenged the enhanced mandatory minimum, alleging that § 851 violated the Sixth Amendment in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

At sentencing, the court determined that Blakely did not require the government to plead prior convictions in the indictment or prove them to a jury, and sentenced Snyder to 120 months imprisonment.

On appeal, Snyder challenges the use of his prior conviction to enhance his sentence, and he questions the continued validity of Almendarez-Torres. He concedes, however, that this court has rejected his argument.

In United States v. Booker, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the Supreme Court held that Blakely applied to the federal sentencing guidelines and that in a mandatory guidelines regime, the Sixth Amendment required that any fact that increased a defendant’s sentence beyond the maximum sentence authorized by the facts established by a plea or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621.

Because Snyder preserved his Booker challenge in the district court, we review the sentences de novo. United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir.2005). The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we also review de novo. United States v. Jackson, 111 F.3d 101, 101 (11th Cir.1997).

We conclude that there is no merit to Snyder’s argument. An enhancement based on a prior conviction, even if not admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury, does not represent a constitutional Booker error. United States v. Orduno-Mireles, 405 F.3d 960, 962-63 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Camacho-Ibarquen, 404 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir.2005). The Supreme Court’s decision in Shepard v. United States, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), does not alter this conclusion. United States v. Gallegos-Aguero, 409 F.3d 1274, 1276-77 (11th Cir.2005); Camacho-Ibarquen, 404 F.3d at 1290 n. 3. Moreover, Booker had no effect on the validity of mandatory minimum sentences. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1333 n. 10 (11th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the sentence imposed. 
      
      . This court now reviews Blakley arguments under Booker.