2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-15-2006 

# U SA v . B ey P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-2626

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Bey " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1107. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1107H onor abl e Jos eph E
. I r enas , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge fort he * D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 05- 2626
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J E F F RE Y B E Y, a / k / a J EF F REY GI LBE RT a / k / a AB DUR RA S HE E D B E Y, J e f f r e y B e y, A ppel l ant
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. N o. 02- cr - 00684) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a rv in K a tz

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 27, 2006 B efor e: A M B R O and FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and

I R E N A S , D i s t r i ctJ udge.

* ( Fi l ed: M ay15, 2006 )2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Jef fre yB ey ap p ea ls his t en -y ea r prison sen tenc e o n the g rou n d that the D istri ct C o u rt
v io late d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b yim p o sin g it b a se d o n a p rio r c o n v ictio n n o t ch a rg e d in hi s i ndi ct m entorpr oven t o a j ur y bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. For t he r eas ons s t at ed her ei n,
w e d e n yB e y ’s r e q u e ste d re lief a n d a c c o rd in g lya f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt. I . Backg r ound B e yp led g u iltyto a n u m b e r o f c h a rg e s in c lu d in g : d istrib u tio n , an d p o ss e ss io n w ith i nt entt o di s t r i but e her oi n; di s t r i but i on, and poss es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne; and pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on. B eyr ece i ved a mandat or yt en- y ears ent ence fort he drug char ges under 21 U
. S. C
. § 841( b) ( 1) ( B )
. A s t o t he gun char ge, B eyr ece i ved a
cons ecut i ve mandat or ys ent ence of fi ve y ear s under18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 1)
. H i s t ot al pr i s on sent ence w as t herefore fi ft een y ears . B e yd o e s n o t ch a llen g e th e f iv e -y e a r se n ten c e . H e d o e s a rg u e , h o w e v e r, th a t h is
m andat or yt en- y ear drug s ent ence i s uncons t i t ut i onal beca us e t he fa ctof hi s pr i orfel onydr ug convi ct i on w as nei t heradmi t t ed norchar ged i n hi s i ndi ct m ent and prove n t o a j ur ybey ond
a re a so n a b le d o u b t. S e e U n ited S tate s v . B o o k e r, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). H e su p p o rts th is cl ai m byas s er t i ng t hatbeca us e t hi s pr i orconvi ct i on w as t he s i ne qua non thatr ender ed t he3

t en- y ears ent ence m andat or y , s ee 21 U
. S. C
. § 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) , i tcannotconst i t ut i onal l ybe found bya j udge. See i d. B eyacc or di ngl yhas r eques t ed t hat w e rem an d to the D i s t r i ct Co u r tf o rr e - s e n t e n c i n g . W e h a v 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). II . A n a ly sis B eca us e of the quant i t y of drugs i nvol ved–10. 62 gr ams of her oi n and 17. 27 gr ams of
cr ack–Beyw as s ubj ectt o puni s hm en t unde r21 U
. S. C
. § 841( b) ( 1) ( B )
. Pur s uantt o t hat Sect i on, a def

endantw ho has been c onvi ct ed of a pr i orfel o n y d rug offens e and w ho di s t r i but es , orpos s es s es w i t h t he i nt ent t o di s t r i but e, t hi s s um of drugs “s hal l be s ent ence d t o a t er m of i m pr i s onm entw hi ch may n o t b e less than t en y ear s and notm or e t han l i fe im p ri so n m en t. ” T h e D istri ct C o u rtd eterm ined that B ey h ad su ch a c o n v ict ion in the fo rm of a 1990 N ew J er s ey s t at e cour tdrug pos s es s i on char ge t o w hi ch he pl ed gui l t y . B as ed on this find ing , the D istri ct C o u rt w as statu tori ly req u ir ed to se n tenc e B ey to at least t en y ea rs in p ri s o n f

o r t h e d ru g c h a rg e . B eynonet hel es s m ai nt ai ns t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hathe had a pr i orfel ony d ru g c o n v ictio n w a s u n c o n stitu tio n a l u n d e r B o o k e r. U n d e r rec e n t p re c e d e n t o f th is C o u rt, i ti s cl eart hatB ey ’ s cont ent i on i s i ncor r ect . I n U ni t ed St at es v. C ol eman, __ F. 3d ___ ( 3d C i r . 2006) , w e addr essed t hi s ver yi s s ue. T her e, w e hel d t hati n a s cena r i o w her e pr i or convi ct i ons i ncr eas ed t he s t atut or y m i ni m um puni s hm ent for a cr i m e, t he G over nm entneed
n o t ch a rg e th e c o n v ictio n s in th e in d ictm e n t an d p ro v e th e m to a ju ryb e y o n d a re a so n a b le4

doubt
. See i d. I n ot herw or ds , w e hel d t hata di s t r i ctco u rtm aym ake the fa ctual d eterm inati on t hata def endanthas a pr i orconvi ct i on w i t houtr unni ng afoul of t he C o n stitu tio n u n d e r B o o k e r. T h a t is p re c ise lyth is is s u e h e re , an d in lig h t o f C o lem a n , itis
c le a r t h a t w e c a n n o t g ra n t B e yh is re q u e s te d re lie f
. W e n o te in p assi ng t hatt hi s r es ul ts quar es neat l yw i t h t he l anguage of B ooker , t he h o ld in g o f

w h ich sta ted th a t “ [ a ]n y f a c t (o th e r th a n a p rio r co n v ictio n ) w h ich is ne c e ss a ryto
s uppor ta s ent ence exce edi ng t he maxi m um aut hor i zed byt he fa ct s es t abl i s hed bya pl ea of gui l t yora j ur yver di ctm us tbe admi t t ed byt he de fe n dantorpr oved t o a j ur ybey ond a
re a so n a b le d o u b t.” 5 4 3 U .S . at 2 4 4 . T h e f a c t o f a p rio r c o n v ictio n is th u s s p e c if ica lly exempt ed fr om t he B ookerr equi r ement t hatcer t ai n fac t s be ei t heradmi t t ed orpr oven t o a j u r y . Th i s l a n g u a g e f

u r th e rc o n v i n c e s u s t h a tBe yc a n n o ts u c c e e d i n h i s c l a i m. I I I . C oncl usi on F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.