Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04084/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04084-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clint C. Morgan
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. 05-4084

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Clint C. Morgan, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 31, 2006

Filed: November 3, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Clint Morgan appeals the 180-month prison sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). On appeal, Morgan argues that a sentence

enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) had to be alleged in the indictment.

Morgan correctly notes that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224

(1994), disposes of his argument. See United States v. Levering, 431 F.3d 289, 295

Appellate Case: 05-4084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2006 Entry ID: 2106422
2

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 

-2-

(8th Cir. 2005) (noting holding in Almendarez-Torres that prior felony convictions are

sentencing factors for court, not fact for jury, and thus district court did not violate the

Sixth Amendment by making findings regarding prior felony convictions for purposes

of § 924(e)(2)); cf. United States v. Raya-Ramirez, 244 F.3d 976, 977 (8th Cir. 2001)

(rejecting argument that fact of prior aggravated-felony conviction must be alleged in

indictment and proved to jury or admitted through guilty plea; citing AlmendarezTorres). Further, this court has rejected the argument that current law has called the

holding of Almendarez-Torres into question. See Levering, 431 F.3d at 295

(Almendarez-Torres is still good law and this court will continue to follow it until

Supreme Court instructs otherwise); see also United States v. Kendrick, 423 F.3d 803,

810 (8th Cir. 2005) (this court has “consistently rejected the applicability of Booker2

to the fact of a prior conviction . . . and to the legal determination of whether a prior

conviction may be categorized as a crime of violence”; sentencing court has authority

to take notice of defendant’s criminal history and determine whether any prior

conviction is properly categorized as crime of violence).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2006 Entry ID: 2106422