Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02560/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02560-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Charles Goodfellow
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

Court for the Western District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2560

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Thomas Charles Goodfellow, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 27, 2007

Filed: May 7, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Charles Goodfellow (Goodfellow) pled guilty to bank robbery, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Designating him as a career offender, see U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.1, the district court1

 sentenced Goodfellow to 151 months’ imprisonment and

3 years’ supervised release.

Goodfellow now argues, as he did below, that the enhancement of his sentence

based on previous convictions that were neither charged in the indictment, nor proved

Appellate Case: 06-2560 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2007 Entry ID: 3306575
-2-

to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, violated the Sixth Amendment. Upon our de

novo review, see United States v. Buckner, 894 F.2d 975, 978 (8th Cir. 1990) (de

novo review of constitutional issues), we find this argument unavailing. See

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 246 (1998) (holding sentenceenhancing previous convictions need not be proved to jury); see, e.g., United States

v. Perry, 437 F.3d 782, 786 (8th Cir. 2006) (rejecting Sixth Amendment challenge to

district court's determination defendant had two previous controlled-substance

offenses); United States v. Torres-Alvarado, 416 F.3d 808, 810 (8th Cir. 2005)

(stating “we are bound by Almendarez-Torres until the Supreme Court explicitly

overrules it”).

We affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2560 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2007 Entry ID: 3306575