Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03564/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03564-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David McElroy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3564

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

David McElroy, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 11, 2005

Filed: April 18, 2005 

___________

Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and MELLOY.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David McElroy pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). At sentencing McElroy objected

to the finding of the district court1

 that his prior convictions for incest and sodomy

were violent felonies within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), but he did not contest

the fact that he had been convicted of these crimes. He was sentenced to the

mandatory minimum of 180 months provided in § 924(e) because he had three

previous convictions for a violent felony or serious drug offense, and he does not

Appellate Case: 04-3564 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2005 Entry ID: 1892277
-2-

contest that his prior convictions for first degree attempted burglary and production

of a controlled substance qualified.

McElroy argues that the district court erred by finding that his prior state court

convictions for sodomy and incest were violent felonies instead of submitting the

question to a jury to be decided beyond a reasonable doubt, citing Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). He contends that Blakely and Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), have undermined the validity of Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The government responds that McElroy does not

contest the fact and validity of his state court convictions and that whether an offense

is a violent felony is a question of law and does not require a jury trial.

In Almendarez-Torres, the Supreme Court held that a prior felony conviction

is a sentencing factor for the court rather than a fact issue for the jury. That principle

has been reaffirmed most recently in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756

(2005). See also Blakely, 124 S. Ct. at 2536; Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490. The

Supreme Court has not reconsidered its decision in Almendarez-Torres, see Shepard

v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1264 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring), and it

remains binding on this court. We conclude that the district court did not err by

applying the mandatory minimum sentence based on McElroy's prior state

convictions for incest and sodomy.

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3564 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2005 Entry ID: 1892277