Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03314/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03314-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Norman Hardesty
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3314

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Norman Hardesty, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 13, 2006

 Filed: March 28, 2006

___________

Before COLLOTON, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Norman Hardesty pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession

of firearms on two separate occasions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The

district court1

 sentenced him to 235 months of imprisonment to be followed by five

years of supervised release. On appeal, Hardesty argues his Sixth Amendment rights

to trial by jury and proof beyond a reasonable doubt were violated because his prior

convictions which were used to enhance his sentence were neither admitted by him,

nor proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Appellate Case: 05-3314 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2006 Entry ID: 2026112
Although Hardesty concedes that his argument is contrary to AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he contends that Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S 466 (2000)

severely undermine the holding of Almendarez-Torres that a district court is entitled

to determine the nature and existence of a defendant’s prior convictions without

submitting these issues to a jury. This court has repeatedly held since Blakely and

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), that the determination of the nature of

a defendant’s prior offense is a legal question to be determined by the district court.

See United States v. Kendrick, 423 F.3d 803, 810 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v.

Camp, 410 F.3d 1042, 1047 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d

982, 984 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 457 (2005). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________ 

 

Appellate Case: 05-3314 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2006 Entry ID: 2026112