FI L ED U
. S
. C O U R T O F A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ANUARY 11, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 06- 1479 4
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 08 08 4- CR-J AL UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, Cross-Appellee,
ve rs us EL ROYAN TO NI O P HI LL IPS , a. k. a. 6, a. k. a. 86, De fendant-Appellee Cr oss -Appe llant. Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida (J an ua ry11, 200 8) Before DU BIN A and KRA VI TC H, Circuit Judges, and GO LD BE RG, * Judg e.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ * Honora ble Richard W. Goldber g , United States Court of International Trade J udg e, sitting by desig nation.Su bs e qu e nt ly , t he g o v e r nm e ntfi le d a m o t io n t o di s m is s it s a pp e a l, whi c h we 1 gr ant e d. A c c or ding ly, th e c r os s- appe al i s a ll t hatr e m ain s fordisp os it ion . 2 PE R CU RIA M: T his is the se co nd t im e w e ha ve c onsi de re d an a ppe al of thi s c as e. I n th e fi rs t a ppe al , w e af

fi rm ed P hil lip s’ s c onvi ct ion s bu t va cate d hi s se nte nc es a nd
rem anded the case for resentencing (“ Phil lip s I ”). O n rem and, the district court
se nte nc ed P hil lip s to 288 m onths i n th e fe de ra l pe nit en tiary . T he gov er nm en t appealed Phillips’s sentence and Phillip s cross-appealed his sentence on three ground s. First, Phillips argues that th e district court err ed when it applied an

1
ar m ed -c ar ee r cr im ina l e nhanc em en t, se e U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 4( a) ( 2002 ), ba se d onit s
erro ne ou s d et erm in at io n t ha t Ph il li ps was a care er o ffen de r, se e § 4B 1.1 (a). Second, P hillip s argues that the district court erre d when it denied his m otion for new tr ial. Third, Phillips con tends that th e district court err oneous ly determ ined that §§ 92 2(g) and 924(e) of T itle 18 of the United States Code ar e constituti onal
a s ap p l i e dt o h i m. A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e part ie s’ br ie fs , a nd h av ing the be ne fi t of or al a rg um en t, w e co nc lud e that a ll of P hil lip s’ s arg um en ts i n su ppor t of his c ro ss- ap pe al a re m er itl es s. B as ed on o ur de ci sio n in Phil lip s I

, P h i l l i p s ’s
ar gum en ts tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it de nie d hi s m oti on f

or ne wtr ia l and3

de te rm ine d th at

§§ 9 22( g) a nd 9 24( e) , a s a ppl ie d to him , do n ot v iol at e the Co ns ti tu ti on are b arre d b y th e la w of t he cas e d oc tri ne . See U nited Sta tes v. Jo rdan , 429 F. 3d 10 32 (11th Cir. 2005 ). Phillips’s argum ent that the district court
erre d wh en itde te rm in edth athe qu al ifi edas a care er o ffen de r, se e U.S.S.G. § 4B 1. 1( a) , w hic h P hil lip s r ai se s f or the f ir st t im e in this appe al , is al so b ar re d by the la w of t he cas e d oc tri ne . Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . E

sc obar -U rre go , 110 F
. 3d 1 556, 1560 ( 11th C ir
. 199 7)
. A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n that P hil lip s qu al if

ie s a s an arm ed -c ar ee r of fe nde r unde r U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 1( a) , and
we aff irm his sentence. AFFIRMED.