P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50908 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. L A MONT E K E I T H , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 5 : 9 8
- CR- 8 1
- ALL B ef ore R E AV L E Y , D AV IS, an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Lam ontE . K ei t h, fede r alpri so ner# 86855- 080, w as convi c t ed i n 1999 by a j u ry of

possess i on of

coc ai n e base (crack) w i t h i n t en tt o di st ribu t e i n vi ol ati on o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 . Un itedS ta tes v. K eith , 2 3 0 F .3d 7 8 4 , 7 8 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). Bas e d o n t he se nt e nc i ng j udg e ’ s det e r m i nat i o n of dr ug qua nt i t y, and b e c aus e he h ad a pri or f

el on y dru g convic t i on , t h e courtsentenced h i m t o t h e m an da t ory m in im u m te r m p r o v id e db y§ 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )(A). W e r eje c t e do n d ir e c ta p p e a l K e it h ’s United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust21, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50908

2 ar gum entt hatt he i m pos i t i on o f a m andat or y m i ni m um bas ed on j udi c i al fac t f i ndi ng vi o l at e d t he Si xt h Am e ndm e ntrul e anno unc e d i n A pp rend iv. New Jers ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ). S ee K eith , 230 F. 3d at786- 87. Se e ki ng t o t ak e a dv ant ag e o f t he Se nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i o n’ s r e c e nt redu ct i on s i n t h e of

fen se l evel s f

or crack cocai n e of

fen ses, K ei t h f

i l ed a m ot i on pur s uantt o 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) . The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d t he m o t i o n o n t he basi s t h at i t l acked au t h ori t y t o gran t a redu ct i on b e low th e m an da t ory m i n i m u m of

20 yea rs. K e ith a p p e a ls , a r g u in gth a t t h e m a n d a to r ym in im u m d o e s n o t a p p lyin li g h t of A

pp re n d i. A ccord i n g t o K ei t h, dr ug quant i t y under§ 841(b) i s an el em en tf

or purp oses of

e s t ab li s hi ng both the m i n i m u m an d m axim u m sentences setout i n § 841(b) ( 1) (A)

- ( C ) , an d any fact t h at i n creases t h e m axim u m sentence n e c e s s a r ilyin c r e a s e s th e m in im u m s e n te n c e . T h u s , h e co n te n d s , Appr e ndi r e quir e s t hats uc h fac t s be al l e ge d i n t he i ndi c t m e nt and e i t he r ad m i t t e d b y t he d e fe n d a n t o rfo u n db yaju r y , a n dth e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a da u th o r ityto re d u c e h is s e n te n c e . W e a r e b o und t o f

o l l o w o ur pr i o r de c i s i o n i n K eith a bs e nta n i nt e r ve ni ng c o n tr a r yd e c is io n b yth e S u p r e m e C o u r t o r th is c o u r t en b a n c . Uni t e d S t at e s v. S h ort , 181 F. 3d 620, 624 ( 5t h C i r . 1999) . W e f i nd no bi ndi ng aut hor i t y t hat o ve r r ul e s o ro t he r w i s e a br o ga t e s t he ho l di ng i n Ke ith . The j udg m e nto f t he d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F IR M E D .