FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOVEMB ER 16 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NOT P UB L I S H] I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11774 N on - A r gu m e n t C al e n d ar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -000 62 -C R -01-1 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 A N T O N I O R U F F , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A p p ealfr om th e U n i te d S tate s D i st ri ctC ou rt f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D is t r ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 16, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A a n d P R Y O R , C i rcu i t J u d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A nt on i o R uff app ea l s both h i s c on vi ct i on for bei ng a f el on i n p osse ss i on of a fi re arm , 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1), and h i s s ent ence un der the “ C ar ee r O ff ender” p r o v is io n o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s , U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 ( b ) ( B ) . W e a f f i rm. R uff pl ea ded g ui l ty t o o ne coun tof po ss es si on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e over f iv e g r a m s o f

c o c a in e b a s e , 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 , a n d o n e c o u n t o f b e in g af

e lo n in po ss es si on of a f

i re arm , 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1). T he di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned that b ecau se R u ff h ad tw o p rev i o u s co n v i ct i o n s fo r ag g rav at ed assau l t , h e q u al i fi ed as a c a r e e rof f e nde runde rthe G ui de l i ne s . S e e U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 1. T hi s e nha nc e m e nt r e s ul t e d i n at ot a l of

f e ns e l e ve l of

31 a f t e radow nw a r d de pa rtur e f ora c c e pt a nc e of r e s p o n s ib ilitya n d as e n te n c in g r a n g e o f 1 8 8 - 2 3 5 m o n th s . R u f

f w a s s e n te n c e d to 188 m onths of

i m pr i s onm e nton the drug c ha r ge a nd 88 m onths of i m pr i s onm e nt on the fi re arm char ge, t o run concurrent l y. A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , R uff o b je c te d to th e u s e o f

h is p r e v io u s c o n v ic tio n s b u t d idn o t r a is e a n yc h a lle n g e to the const i tut i on al i ty of the fi re arm st atut e. T hi s C ou rtre vi ew s de nov o q uest i on s of l aw ar i si ng un der the U ni t ed S t at es S ent enci ng G ui del i nes. U ni t ed S t at es v. C raw ford, 40 7 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 78 (11th C i r. 2005) . T he c ons t i tut i ona l i tyof as t a tut e i s r e vi e w e d de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C un ni ng ham , 16 1 F . 3d 13 43 , 13 45 (11th C i r. 19 98 ).3

R u f f e rr o n e o u s lyq u e s tio n s f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l th e c o n s titu tio n a lity of the f e de r a l s t a tut e tha tpr ohi bi t s the pos s e s s i on of af i r e a rm byaf

e l on. S e e 18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ( 1) . T ha ts t a tut e pr ovi de s , “ I ts ha l l be unl a w f ul f ora nype r s on ( 1) w ho has bee n con vi ct ed i n any courtof[] a c ri m e pun i shabl e by i m pri sonm entfor a t e rm e xc e e di ng one y e a r. . . [ t o] pos s e s s i n ora f f e c t i ng c om m e r c e , a nyf i r e a rm or a m m uni t i on . . . . ” I d. R uf f a r gue s tha tthe “

j ur i s di c t i ona l hook” of

s e c t i on 922( g) ( 1) , w hi c h r e f

e r s t o pos s e s s i on “ i n ora f f e c t i ng c om m e r c e , ” i s be y ond the po w erof C on gres s, bu tthi s C ou rthas r epea t edl y r ej ec t ed thi s argum ent . S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D unn, 345 F . 3d 1285, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D upr e e , 258 F . 3d 1258, 1259 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ott , 263 F . 3d 12 70 , 12 72 (11th C i r. 20 01 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. M cA l l i st er , 77 F . 3d 38 7 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ). R uf

f ne xtc ha l l e nge s hi s s e nt e nc e unde rthe “ C a r e e rO f f e nde r ” pr ovi s i on of the U ni t ed S t at es S ent enci ng G ui del i nes. S ee U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 1. R uff argues that the di s tr i c tc ourte rr one ous l yc ons i de r e d hi s tw o pr e vi ous c onvi c t i ons f or aggravat ed as saul tbecause “ the nature of R uff’ s pri or conv i ct i on s w as nei ther al l eged i n the i nd i ctm ent , prov ed t o a j ury bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt , no r a dm i tt ed byR uf f . ” R uf f c onc e de s tha tunde rc urr e ntc a s e l a w , “ the gove rnm e ntne e d not prov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthata def endanthad p ri or conv i ct i on s f or a di stri ctcourtt o u se tho se conv i ct i on s f or pu rposes of enhanci ng a s ent ence . ”4

U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t i ng A l m endarez -T orre s v. U ni t ed S t at es , 52 3 U . S . 22 4, 11 8 S . C t . 12 19 (199 8)). R uff cont ends thata r ec entl i ne of deci si on s by the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rthas c a l l e d i nt o que s t i on the va l i di tyof the A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s hol di ng. S e e S he pa r d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , ___ U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 1254 ( 2005) ; A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 46 6, 12 0 S . C t . 23 48 (200 0). R uff’ s argum entfa i l s f

or atl ea sttw o rea sons. F i rs t , R uff’ s c on t ent i on that he ne ve ra dm i tt e d the f

a c tof hi s c onvi c t i ons i s f

a l s e . A tthe R ul e 11 he a r i ng, the prosec ut i on pres ent ed t es t i m on y thatR uff had tw i ce been conv i ct ed of aggravat ed a s s aul t , a nd R uf

f a dm i tt e d tha tthe t e s t i m onyw a s a c c ur a t e . R uf f a l s o di d not obj e c tt o the l i s t i ng a nd de s c r i pt i on of thos e c onvi c t i ons i n the pr e s e nt e nc i ng i nv es t i gat i on re po rt . N o i nq ui ryi nt o the det ai l s of tho se conv i ct i on s w as nece ss ary to d e te rm in e th a t th e yq u a lif ie d a s c r im e s o f

v io le n c e ; th e G u id e lin e s s p e c if ic a lly id e n tif ya g g r a v a te d a s s au lt a s ac r im e o f v io le n c e . U .S .S .G § 4 B 1 .2 , c m t. n .1 . S e c o n d , e v e n if

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt h a d r e lie d o n th e ru le o f A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s to consi der the conv i ct i on s, thi s C ou rthas a l re ady r ej ec t ed the ar gu m entthatm ore r e c e ntde c i s i ons ha ve unde rm i ne d i t s va l i di ty . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m a c hoIbar qu en, 40 4 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 90 n. 3 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). A FFI R M ED .