FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 8, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 11183 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 8 0 1 1 5 - C R - D MM 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 J O H N N Y L E E M O Y E , 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e pt e m be r8, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: John ny L ee M oye app ea l s hi s 180 -m on th sent ence for posse ss i on of a2

f ir e a rm b y a f

e lo n . M o y e a r g u e s th a t h is r ig h t to a ju ry tr ia l u n d e rth e S ix th A m endm entw as vi ol at ed w hen the di stri ctcourt , as a m att erof l aw , det erm i ned tha tM oy e ’ s a dm i tt e d pr e vi ous c onvi c t i ons w e r e qua l i f y i ng of f e ns e s f orthe p u rp o s e o f

e n h a n c in g M o y e ’s s e n te n c e u n d e rth e A rm e d C a r e e rC r im in a l A c t. B e c a us e the de t e rm i na t i on tha tM oy e ’ s pr e vi ous c onvi c t i ons w e r e qua l i f y i ng o f f e n s e s w a s a q u e s tio n o f la w f o rth e c o u r t, w e a f

f irm . W e r evi ew M oye’ s s ent ence de no vo , bu tw i l l re vers e onl y f or harm ful error. U ni t ed S t at es v. P az , 40 5 F . 3d 94 6, 94 8-49 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). M oy e pl e a de d gui l ty t o one c ountof pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a rm by a f

e l on. 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1). M oye’ s a dm i tt ed previ ou s c on vi ct i on s i ncl ud e a tt em pt ed bu rgl ary, sa l e of c ocai ne, sa l e of m ar i j uana, and res i st i ng an offi ce r w i th v i ol ence . T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatthese previ ou s c on vi ct i on s qual i fi ed M oye a s a n a rm e d c a r e e rc r i m i na l . U nde rs e c t i on 922( g) ( 1) , the s t a tut ory m a xi m um t e rm of i m pri sonm enti s 120 m on ths, bu tun der the m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence pr ovi s i on of

the A rm e d C a r e e rC r i m i na l A c t , a de f e nda ntw i th thr e e qua l i f y i ng conv i ct i on s i s s ubj ec tt o a m i ni m um se nt ence of 18 0 m on ths. 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e ). B ec ause M oye has atl ea stthree qu al i fy i ng previ ou s c on vi ct i on s, the di stri ctcourt s e n te n c e d h im u n d e rs e c tio n 9 2 4 ( e ) . A l tho ug h h e a dm i t s hi s pre vi ou s c on vi ct i on s, M oye a rgues thatthe di stri ct3

courtvi ol at ed hi s r i gh tt o a j ury tri al un der the S i xth A m endm entw hen the court det erm i ned thathi s pre vi ou s c on vi ct i on s w er e qual i fy i ng offe nses for a n enh ance d s e nt e nc e unde rs e c t i on 924( e ) . I n M oy e ’ s vi e w , the que s t i on w he the ra pr e vi ous co n v i ct i o n i s a q u al i fyi n g o ffen se fo r th e p u rp o se o f sen t en ce en h an cem en ti s a f a c tu a l q u e s tio n f

o rth e ju ry , n o t th e c o u r t. M o y e is w r o n g . W hether aprevi ou s c on vi ct i on i s aqu al i fy i ng offe nse und erse ct i on 92 4(e) i s a q u e s t i o n o f

l a w f o rth e c o u r t . Se e Sh e p a r d v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 5 4 4 U . S. __ , 1 2 5 S. C t . 1254 ( 2005) . A l though the S upr e m e C our tha s l i m i t e d the s our c e s t o w hi c h a j udge m a y l ook i n de t e rm i ni ng w he the ra pr e vi ous c onvi c t i on i s a qua l i f y i ng of f e ns e unde rs e c t i on 924( e ) , i d. a t__, 125 S . C t . a t1257, M oy e doe s nota r gue thatthe di stri ctcourtl oo ked b ey on d tho se source s i n sent enci ng hi m as an arm ed c a r e e rc r im in a l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rr . AF F I RME D.