Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02195/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02195-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Douglas Leon Harkreader
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2195

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Arkansas.

*

Douglas Leon Harkreader, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2006

Filed: March 6, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Douglas Leon Harkreader was convicted of being a felon in possession of a

firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). By his criminal history, the district court1

found that under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), the

appropriate guidelines range was 188 to 235 months. The court then varied

downward, sentencing Harkreader to the 180-month statutory minimum. Having

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Appellate Case: 05-2195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2006 Entry ID: 2017124
-2-

First, Harkreader argues his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the

judge's determination of his prior convictions. To the contrary, "a prior felony

conviction is a sentencing factor for the court, not a fact issue for the jury." United

States v. Carrillo-Beltran, 424 F.3d 845, 848 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 240–44 (1998)), cert. denied, No. 05-8358,

2006 WL 386793 (Feb. 21, 2006). This court follows Almendarez-Torres, which is

still controlling. See United States v. Levering, 431 F.3d 289, 295 (8th Cir. 2005);

United States v. Morell, 429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. TorresAlvarado, 416 F.3d 808, 810 (8th Cir. 2005). Thus, the district court did not abuse its

discretion by making findings about the prior felony convictions.

Next, Harkreader claims that mandatory minimum sentences are

unconstitutional after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Shepard v.

United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005). Because he did not raise this constitutional

challenge before the district court, this court reviews for plain error. See United States

v. Jackson, 419 F.3d 839, 844 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d

543, 549–50 (8th Cir. 2005)), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 841 (2005). Under plain error

review, this court will reverse only if there is 1) error 2) that is plain and 3) affects the

defendant's substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).

In addition, the error must seriously affect "the fairness, integrity or public reputation

of judicial proceedings." Id. 

This court has determined that, post-Booker, mandatory minimum sentences are

constitutional. See United States v. Rojas-Coria, 401 F.3d 871, 874 n.4 (8th Cir.

2005), see also United States v. Nolan, 397 F.3d 665, 667 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 195 (2005). Therefore, the district court did not err in sentencing

Harkreader to the minimum sentence under the ACCA. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2006 Entry ID: 2017124