Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03722/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03722-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Gerald Thomas Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3722

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Gerald Thomas Williams, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2007

Filed: March 26, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Thomas Williams appeals the 120-month sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Williams argues that imposition of a statutory minimum

sentence based on an alleged prior conviction violates his Fifth and Sixth Amendment

rights as established in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Citing Blakely

v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), he also questions the continued viability of

Appellate Case: 05-3722 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2007 Entry ID: 3291762
-2-

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-47 (1998) (prior conviction

is sentencing factor for court to decide).

We conclude the district court did not err in determining that Williams’s prior

conviction qualified under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2) as abusive sexual conduct

involving a minor. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 244 (reaffirming prior-conviction

exception to facts that must be admitted by defendant or proved to jury beyond

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

2005) (“we are bound by Almendarez-Torres until the Supreme Court explicitly

overrules it”); United States v. Johnson, 411 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir.) (Sixth

Amendment does not require that fact of prior conviction be determined by jury; once

court determines that prior conviction exists, characterization of that conviction is

legal matter for court), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 505 (2005).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3722 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2007 Entry ID: 3291762