F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 9, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1332 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-80113 -CR- DMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ERIC D. CLARK, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(J un e 9, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, CA RN E S an d P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

De fendant-Appellant E ric Clark appeals the 300-m onth sentence im posed upon his c onvi ct ion f

or pos se ssi on o f a fi re arm

by ac onvi ct edf

el on, in vio la tio n of 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g)(1) a nd 18 U. S. C. § 924 (e). N o reversible er ror has been s h o w n ; w e a f

f i r m. The district court sentenced Clark under the Arm ed Care er C riminal Act (“ ACC A” ), 18 U. S. C. § 924 (e). Sec tion 9 24(e) prescribes the penalty for a de fe nda nt w ho i s c onvi ct edund er 18 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) (1 ) of be ing af el on unlawfully in poss ession o f a f irearm and who has three e arlier convictio ns for a vio le nt f el onyor ase ri ous drug o ff

en se . S ec tio n 92 4( e) (1 ) pr es cribe s amini m um sentence of not less than fifteen y ears; the authorized statutory m axim um is life im pr iso nm en t. S ee U nit edS ta te s v. Br ame, 997 F . 2d 1 426, 142 8 ( 11 Ci r. 199 3) th (co nc lu di ng th atth e “ of

fen se st at ut or y m ax imum ” u nd er t he ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924( e) is lif

e im pr iso nm en t) . A cc or din g to the P SI , Cl ark ha d f our se parate Fl or ida c onvi ct ion s f

or e ith er sa le of c oc ai ne or

pos se ssi on w ith int en t t o dis tr ibu te . B ec au se Cl ark ha d th re e or m or e co nvi ct ion s f

or se ri ous drug o ff

en se s, he wa s subject to an A CCA section 924 (e) enhancem ent; U. S. S. G. § 4B1.4 applied to th e cal cu la ti on of h is off en se lev el . Clark obj ected at sentencing to the ACC A e nhancem ent: he m ade a co nst itu tio na l c ha lle nge to ap pli ca tio n of the e nha nc emen t w ith out aj ur y f ind ing3

on the pr ior

c onvi ct ion s us edto supp ort the e nha nc emen t. C lark arg ue d th at

the continu ed validity of A lm endarez- Torr es v. U nited States, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), ha d be en und ermine d byA ppr en di v . N ew Je rs ey , 120 S . Ct . 234 8 ( 2000 ), a nd i ts progeny . I n Almendarez- Torr es, the S uprem e Court re j ected the ar gum ent that re ci div ism

m ust be tr ea te d a s a n e le m en t of a n of fe nse ; a se nte nc ing c ourt c oul d use prior convictio ns for sentencing enhancem ent purpos es. Id. T he district court im pli ci tlyr ej ec te d C lark ’ s A lmen dare z- T orre s arg um en t, appl ie d th e en ha nc emen t and stated that absent th e A CCA enhancem ent the court would have departed up ward gi ve n C la rk ’s cri min al hi st or y . O n appe al , Cl ark on ce a ga in m ai nta ins tha t c onsi de rable dou bt e xis ts about the c ont inu edva lid ityof

A lmen dare z- T orre s. C lark m ai nta ins tha t the m ax im um sta tut or y se nte nc e fo r a se ct ion 922 (g ) vio la tio n w ith out the e nha nc emen t i s 10 y ears ; hi s 30 0- m onth se nte nc e far ex ce ed s th is m ax im um . C lark

c onc ed es , however, that his sentence is without reversible error if Almendarez- Torr es rem ains goo d law. A nd Clark acknowledges that we have held that Alm endarezT orre s r em ai ns b ind ing la w , but he a dva nc es his c la im

so tha t the iss ue m aybe pr es erv ed forsu bs eq ue ntrev ie w. W e have re

j ected on m any occasions argum ents that Alm endarez- Torr es has be en , in ef

fe ct , ove rrule d byla te r Su pr eme Co urt de ci sio ns. S ee U nit edS ta te s v.4

G re er , 440 F . 3d 1 267, 127 3- 75 ( 11 Ci r. 200 6) ( re vie w ing de ci sio ns p ost th Apprendi and its progeny that affirm ed the continu ing valid ity of A lm endarezTorr es). A nd tho ugh we have noted that recent Supreme Court decisions “ m ay ar guablyc as t do ubt

on the f utu re pr ospe ct s of

A lmen dare z- T orre s’ s ho ldi ng re gard ing pr ior

c onvi ct ion s, ” U nit edS ta te s v. Ca m ac ho- Ib ar que n, 410 F . 3d 1 307, 1316 n. 3 (11 Cir. 2005 ), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 457 (200 5), w e have stated

th repeate dly that “ unless and until th e Supreme Court specifica lly overrules A lmen dare z- T orre s, w e w ill c ont inu e to f oll ow it . ” G re er , 440 F . 3d a t 12 73. T he S upr eme Co urt ha s is sue d no de ci sio n ov er ru lin g sp ec if

ic al ly A lmen dare z- T orre s; i t r em ai ns b ind ing pr ec ed en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in us in g C la rk ’s pri orco nv ic ti on s t o e nh an ce h is sen te nc e u nd er t he ACCA. AFFIR MED.