Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-06-02355/USCOURTS-ca3-06-02355-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randall Austin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-2355

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RANDALL AUSTIN,

 Appellant

 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00682)

District Judge: The Honorable Petrese B. Tucker

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 6, 2008

 

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, BARRY and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: May 28, 2008)

 

OPINION

 

BARRY, Circuit Judge

Appellant Randall Austin appeals the District Court’s imposition of a 240-month

term of imprisonment following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The District Court imposed the sentence after

Case: 06-2355 Document: 00311895804 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2008
finding that the government had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the

criteria for application of the Armed Career Criminal (“ACC”) enhancement of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(e) to Austin had been satisfied. Had the District Court not applied the ACC

enhancement, Austin would have faced a statutory maximum sentence of 120 months in

prison. 

Austin raises a single issue on appeal, namely whether the government’s failure to

charge all of the ACC predicate offenses in the indictment and to prove them to a jury

beyond a reasonable doubt violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. This argument

is clearly foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Vargas, 477 F.3d 94, 105 (3d Cir.

2007) (declaring that Almendarez-Torres “continues to bind our decisions”); United

States v. Coleman, 451 F.3d 154, 161 (3d Cir. 2006) (stating that “Almendarez-Torres

remains good law”); United States v. Ordaz, 398 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting that

“[t]he holding in Almendarez-Torres remains binding law”). We will affirm. 

 

Case: 06-2355 Document: 00311895804 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2008