Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03650/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03650-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lonnie Lee Rhodes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The HONORABLE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3650

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Lonnie Lee Rhodes, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 15, 2006

Filed: August 18, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MELLOY and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lonnie Lee Rhodes pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). At sentencing, the district court1

 found that

Rhodes was subject to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), by reason

of three prior violent felony convictions for residential burglary. The court sentenced

Rhodes to the statutory minimum of 180 months in prison, varying downward from

his advisory guidelines sentencing range of 188-235 months. Rhodes appeals. 

Appellate Case: 05-3650 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2006 Entry ID: 2079800
-2-

Rhodes argues that the district court erred in increasing his sentence based on

judicial findings of prior convictions because the Supreme Court in Shepard v. United

States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), implicitly overruled its prior decision in AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). We have previously rejected this

contention, concluding that “we are bound by Almendarez-Torres until the Supreme

Court explicitly overrules it.” United States v. Torres-Alvarado, 416 F.3d 808, 810

(8th Cir. 2005). He further argues that the district court violated his Sixth

Amendment rights under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because the

court, rather than a jury, found both the fact and the nature of his prior convictions

in applying the Armed Career Criminal Act. Again, we have explicitly rejected this

contention. See United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2005). 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3650 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2006 Entry ID: 2079800