T hi s orderand j udgm enti s notbinding prece dentexceptunderthe doctrinesof * l aw of the ca s e, res j udi cata and c ol l aterales toppel . T he courtgeneral lydi s favor s the citati on of order s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an orderand j udgm entm aybe cited under the term s and conditi ons of 10th C ir . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### N ove m b e r13,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. GARY O BRY TAYLOR, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 5200 ( N . D . O kl ahoma) ( D. Ct . No. 0 5 - CR- 4 7 - 0 1 - CV E)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. G ar yO br yT ay l orappea l s an arm ed ca r eercr i m i nal s ent ence i m pos ed af t er hi s pl ea of

gui l t yt o pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on i n vi ol at i on ofT ayl ori s notchal l enging hi s s entenceon C ount s 2 and 4. T hos e counts involved 1 v iolati o n s o f 1 8 U . S . C . § § 9 2 2 (j ) an d9 2 4 (a)(2).

- 2- 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) a n d 9 2 4 ( e ) . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) a n d a ffi r m. O n M ar ch 10, 2005, T ay l orw as i ndi ct ed on fourcount s : pos s es s i on of a firearm b ya c o n v ict ed fe lon (C o u n ts 1 a n d 3 ), an d p o sses sion o f a stolen firearm (C o u n ts 2 an d 4 ). T h e ind ict m en t l ist ed m u lt iple p ri o r fe lon yco n v ict ion s as p art 12 of C ount s 1 and 3. T ay l orpl ed gui l t yt o al l count s . D ur i ng t he cha nge of pl ea he ar i ng, t he di s t r i ctcour ti nfor m ed Tay l ort hatC ount s 1 and 3 i ncl uded t he enha nced pe nal t i es s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) , t he A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ct( A C C A ) . T he di s t r i ctcour tal s o advi s ed Tay l orof t he mandat or ym i ni m um fi ft een- y ears ent ence fo r t h ese co u n ts an d en su red h e u n d erstoo d the e ffec t of h is j u rytr ial w aive r. A pr es ent ence r epor t( PSR ) w as pr epar ed, s how i ng a bas e offens e l evel of 2 4 . T w o leve ls w ere ad d ed u n d er U S S G § 2 K 2 . 1 (b)(4 ) be ca u se th e fir ea rm s w ere stolen . T h e P S R also iden ti fied m o re tha n three v iolen t felon ies an d there fo re c a teg o riz e d T a y lo r a s a n a rm e d c a re e r c rim in a l fo r se n ten c in g p u rp o se s o n C o u n ts 1 and 3, pur s uantt o U SSG § 4B 1. 4. T hi s r es ul t ed i n a bas e offens e l evel of 33. T a yl o rr e c e i v e d a r e d u c t i o n o f t h r e e l e v e l s fo ra c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y, re s u ltin g in a to ta l o ffe n s e le v e l o f 3 0 . H is c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry w a s V I.- 3-

T he sentenci ng gu i deli ne rang e w as 168 t o 2 10 m on t hs. T ay lor o bjected to the sen tenc e b eing incre ase d u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (e). D ur i ng t he s ent enci ng hear i ng on O ct ober6, 2005, t he di s t r i ctcour tr evi ew ed T ay l or ’ s obj ect i ons and overr ul ed t hem. T he di s t r i ctcour tacknow l edged the advi s or ynatur e of the gui del i nes and cons i der ed t hem al ong w i t h t he fa ct or s s et for t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . T he cour tfound “a s ent ence att he hi gh end of the gui del i ne r ange i s r eas onabl e i n t hi s cas e due t o [Tay l or ’ s ] ext ens i ve cr i m i nal h isto ryth a t in c lu d e s s e v e ra l v io len t o ffe n se s a n d sp a n n in g [ T a y lo r’s ] e n tire a d u lt l i fe. ” (R . V ol. IV at 12 . ) Th e cou rtsent enced T ay l or t o 2 10 m on t hs on C ou nts 1 a n d 3 , a n d 1 2 0 m o n th s o n C o u n ts 2 a n d 4 , w ith a ll te rm s ru n n in g c o n c u rr e n tly. O n appea l , T ay l orchal l enges hi s s ent ence on C ount s 1 and 3. H e ar gues t h e F i f t h a n d S i x t h Ame n d me n t s p r o h i b i ti n c r e a s i n g h i s s e n t e n c e u n d e rt h e ACCA unl es s a j ur yfi nds bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatt he pr i orconvi ct i ons w er e for viol ent fel on i es. T ay l or does n ot chal l eng e t he ex i st ence o f t he p ri or conv i ct i on s; he ack no w l edg es t hat bypleadi ng gu i l t yhe ad m i t t ed to hav e com m i t t ed those fel oni es s etfor t h i n t he i ndi ct m ent . I ns t ead, T ay l orchal l enges w hathe dee m s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ng t hatt heyw er e vi ol entfel oni es as defi ned byt he AC CA . T ay l or ’ s ar gum enti s pr ecl uded byourdeci s i on i n Unit ed S t ates v. Moo re , w hi ch he a cknow l edges . 401 F. 3d 1220 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . I n Moo re , w e hel d t he deter m i nati on as t o w hethera part i cularfel on ycon st i tutes a viol ent one i s a- 4-

q u e s tio n o f

la w . Id. at1224- 26. T her efor e, “t he Si xt h A m endment does not r equi r e t hatdet er m i nat i on t o be made bya j ur y . ” Id . at1225. T ay l or ’ s ar gum ent re c a stin g th e fin d in g a s a q u e stio n o f fa c t, i n a n a ttem p t to c re a te a F if th o r S ix th A m e n d m e n t v io latio n , is w ith o u t m e rit. AF F I RMED . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge