Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15184/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15184-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dana E. Tuomi
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15184

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80105-DTKH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

DANA E. TUOMI, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 27, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 14-15184 Date Filed: 05/27/2015 Page: 1 of 4
2

Defendant Dana Tuomi appeals his 132-month sentence, imposed below the 

advisory guideline range of 151 to 188 months, after pleading guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to one count of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2113(a). After review, we affirm. 

I.

Defendant argues for the first time on appeal that the residual clause of the 

career offender enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), that was used to 

enhance his sentence based on his prior convictions, is unconstitutionally vague. 

Generally, we review a constitutional sentencing issue de novo, provided the 

objection was raised in the district court. United States v. Steed, 548 F.3d 961, 978 

(11th Cir. 2008). However, because Defendant failed to challenge the 

constitutionality of the residual clause below, we review this claim only for plain 

error. United States v. Weeks, 711 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2013). Therefore, in 

order to prevail, Defendant must demonstrate that there was error, the error was 

plain, the error affects his substantial rights, and the error seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity, or reputation of the judicial proceedings. United States v. 

Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005).

In United States v. Gandy, we expressly held that the residual clause of the 

Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) is not unconstitutionally vague. 710 F.3d 

1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2013), cert denied, 134 S. Ct. 304 (2013). We have since 

USCA11 Case: 14-15184 Date Filed: 05/27/2015 Page: 2 of 4
3

applied our holding in Gandy to claims concerning the residual clause in the career 

offender enhancement, since the residual clauses in these two provisions are 

virtually identical. United States v. Travis, 747 F.3d 1312, 1314 n.1 (11th Cir.

2014) (noting that the argument that the career offender guideline residual clause is 

unconstitutionally vague is foreclosed by this Court’s decision in Gandy), cert. 

denied, 135 S. Ct. 148 (2014); see also Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293, 

1309 n.16 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (noting that this Court has held that the 

residual clauses in the ACCA and career offender provision are “virtually 

identical” “so that decisions about one apply to the other”). Accordingly, 

Defendant has shown no error, plain or otherwise, as his argument is squarely 

foreclosed by our decision in Gandy. And, “[w]e are bound by prior precedent 

decisions unless or until we overrule them while sitting en banc, or they are 

overruled by the Supreme Court.” United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181, 1189 

(11th Cir. 2011). 

II.

Defendant also argues on appeal that the district court erred by applying the 

career offender enhancement because the prior convictions used as the predicate 

offenses for the enhancement were not alleged in the charging information. 

Because Defendant raised this objection in the district court, we review this 

constitutional issue de novo. See Steed, 548 F.3d at 978.

USCA11 Case: 14-15184 Date Filed: 05/27/2015 Page: 3 of 4
4

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a 

defendant’s prior convictions could be considered and used to enhance a 

defendant’s sentence without having been alleged in the indictment or proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998). This holding still 

stands, and “we are bound to follow Almendarez-Torres unless and until the 

Supreme Court itself overrules that decision.” United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 

1028, 1035 (11th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did 

not err when it relied on prior convictions not alleged in the charging information 

to enhance Defendant’s sentence. 

For these reasons, Defendant’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-15184 Date Filed: 05/27/2015 Page: 4 of 4