FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 23 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14770 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 1 1 2 - CR- O RL- 1 8 - K RS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s P A T R I C K B . D A N I E L S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 23, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P u r s u a n t to a p le a a g r e e m e n t w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t, ap p e lla n t p le d g u ilty toThe indictment listed 12 felonies a ppellant had c ommitt ed betwe en Jul y 1987 and 1 November

2002. All the felonies but one involved c ocaine . Appe lla nt w a s su bje c t toan enh anc e d p ri so n s e ntenc eun der 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 4( e ), to- wi t: 2 a mandatory

minimumsentenc e of 15 year s and a max imum sentence of life. Under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4( a), a

defendant who is subject to an enhance d sentenc e under § 924(e) is an arme d career c ri m i n al . B a s e d

o na p p e l l ant ’ s t o t alo f

f e n s el e v e lo f

3 1 an d h i s c ri m i n alh i s t o r

y c at e g o r y o f V I, the Guidelines pre scribed a rang e of imprisonment of 188 to 235 months. Acc ordingto the judgment it entered a fter imposingsentenc e, the district cour t sentence d appellant to a term of 168 months “with credit for time served in F lorida State custody on related offenses.” 2 pos s e s s i on of

tw o f i r e a r m s a f

t e rha vi ng be e n c onvi c t e d of a f e l ony , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 922( g) , a nd the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d hi m t o a pr i s on t e r m of 168 1 m onths . I n thi s appe a l , appe l l a ntc ha l l e nge s hi s s e nt e nc e on the f ol l ow i ng 2 g ro u n d s: 1) B l akel y v. W as hi ng t on , 54 2 U . S . 29 6, 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 (200 4), and U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), ef fe ct i vel y overturned A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 523 U . S . 224, 118 S . C t . 1219 ( 1998) , a nd th e r e b y r e n d e r e d h is s e n te n c e u n c o n s titu tio n a l; 2) T he f e l on- i n- pos s e s s i on s t a tut e , 18 U . S . C . § 922( g) , i s f a c i a l l y i nva l i d; a nd 3 ) T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in e n h a n c in g h is o f f e n s e le v e l u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2K 2. 1(b)(5). A ppe l l a nt ’ s f

i r s tc ha l l e nge i s f

or e c l os e d by ourde c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G re er , 44 0 F . 3d 12 67 , 12 73 (11th C i r. 20 06 ).3

A p p el l an t ’ s seco n d ch al l en g e i s fo recl o sed b y sev eral o f o u r d eci si o n s, i ncl ud i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. S cott , 26 3 F . 3d 12 70 , 12 72 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). W e do n otconsi der app el l ant ’ s thi rd chal l enge because , un der the pl ea a gr e e m e nthe e xe c ut e d a nd a s the di s tr i c tc our tf ound, appe l l a ntknow i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o appe a l the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of the G u id e lin e s . AF F I R ME D.