FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAR 29, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 13579 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 1 0 0 - C R - F T M- 3 3 - DN F 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 D A V I D W I L L I T S , 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 29, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntJ ohn D a vi d W i l l i t s ( “ W i l l i t s ” ) appe a l s hi s 200- m onth s e nt e nc e s of im p r is o n m e n t, im p o s e d a f te rh e p le d g u ilty to : ( 1 ) o n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s io n w ith2

i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f

i ve gr a m s orm or e of

m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1) and 84 1(b)(1)(B)(vi i i ); and (2) on e c ou ntof po ss es si on of a f i r e a r m a n d a mmu n i t i o n b y a c o n v i c t e d f e l o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C. § § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) a n d 9 2 4 ( e ) . I. I n hi s br i e f

on appe a l , W i l l i t s f

i r s ta s s e r t s tha thi s r i ght s unde rthe F i f th a nd S i xth A m endm ent s a nd F ed. R . C ri m . P . 11 w er e vi ol at ed, because the re cord r e f le c ts th a t h e d id n o t u n d e r s ta n d th e n a tu r e o f th e c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im . W illits c o n te n d s th a t th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e d id n o t d e te r m in e th e e x is te n c e o f a f a c tu a l b a s is f o rth e in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e e le m e n t o f th e f e lo n in p o s s e s s io n c h a r g e , th a t W illits ne ve ra dm i tt e d tha tthe f i r e a r m a nd a m m uni t i on a f f e c t e d i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , a nd tha tthe gove rnm e ntdi d notpr of f e ra f a c tua l ba s i s f

orthe c om m e nc e e l e m e nta tthe c h a n g e - o f

- p le a h e a r in g . T h u s , W illits a s s e r ts , h is g u ilty p le a w a s n o t k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily e n te r e d , a n d h is g u ilty p le a s h o u ld b e v a c a te d . W he n, a s he r e , a n obj e c t i on t o a vi ol a t i on of F e d. R . C r i m . P . 11 ha s not b e e n r a is e d in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e r e v ie w u n d e rth e p la in - e rr o ra n a ly s is . U ni t ed Stat e s v . Monr oe , 353 F . 3d 1346, 1349 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . “ U nde rpl a i n- e rr or r e v ie w , th e d e f

e n d a n t h a s th e b u r d e n to s h o w th a t th e r e is ( 1 ) e rr o r( 2 ) th a t is p la in and (3) thataf

fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. If al l three cond i t i on s a re m et , [w e] m ay then3

e xe r c i s e [ our ] di s c r e t i on t o not i c e a f or f e i t e d e rr or , butonl y i f

( 4) the e rr or se ri ou sl y a ff

ec t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I

d. (i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). Be f o r e a c c e p t i n g a g u i l ty p l e a , a d i s tr i c tc o u r tmu s tc o mp l y w i th Fe d . R. C r i m . P . 11, a nd i n pa r t i c ul a r , the c our tm us ta ddr e s s thr e e c or e c onc e rns unde r l y i ng the rul e : “ ( 1) the gui l ty pl e a m us tbe f r e e f r om c oe r c i on; ( 2) the d efen d an tm u stu n d erst an d th e n atu re o f th e ch arg es; an d (3 ) th e d efen d an tm u st kn ow and u nd er st and the consequences of hi s gui l ty pl ea . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. H ern a n dez-Fra i re , 2 0 8 F .3 d 9 4 5 , 9 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . S p e c if ic a lly , F e d . R . C r im . P . 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( G ) r e q u ir e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to de t e r m i ne tha ta de f

e nda ntunde r s t a nds “ the na tur e of e a c h c ha r ge t o w hi c h the d e f e n d a n ti s p l e a d i n g ” b e f

o r e a c c e p t i n g th e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s g u i l ty p l e a . Fe d . R. Cr i m. P . 1 1 (b )(1 )(G ). W e h av e ex p l ai n ed th at“ th ere i s n o o n e m ech an i cal o r p reci se j unc tur e t o w hi c h the di s tr i c tj udge m us tc onf or m i n a dvi s i ng a de f

e nda ntof the nature of the charges t o w hi ch he i s pl ea di ng gu i l ty. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Mosl ey , 173 F . 3d 1318, 1322 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . W e de t e r m i ne “ on a c a s e - by - c a s e ba s i s w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our ta de qua t e l y e ns ur e d tha ta de f e nda nt un ders t oo d the nature of the charge. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Jam es , 210 F . 3d 1342, 1344 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . W he n a de f e nda ntf a c e s s i m pl e c ha r ge s , a r e a di ng of the4

in d ic tm e n t, f

o llo w e d b y a n o p p o r tu n ity to a s k q u e s tio n s , is a d e q u a te to s h o w th a t a de f e nda ntw a s i nf

or m e d of the na tur e of

the c ha r ge s , butt o e ns ur e tha ta de f e nda nt u n d e r s ta n d s m o r e c o m p le x c h a r g e s o rc o n c e p ts , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y e le c t to e x p la in th e e le m e n ts o f

th e o f f e n s e . I d. a t 1 3 4 4 - 4 5 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . M oreover, R ul e 11 requi re s thata di stri ctcourtm ay ac ce pta gui l ty pl ea , o n l y i f i td e t e r mi n e s “ th a tth e r e i s a f a c tu a l b a s i s f

o rth e p l e a . ” Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 1 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) . “‘T h e s ta n d a r d f o re v a lu a tin g c h a lle n g e s to th e f a c tu a l b a s is f

o ra g u ilty p le a is w h e th e rth e tr ia l c o u r t w a s p r e s e n te d w ith e v id e n c e f r o m w h ic h it c o u ld re as on abl y f

i nd thatthe defendantw as gu i l ty. ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Fry e , 402 F . 3d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed , 125 S . C t . 2986 ( 2005) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. L op ez , 9 0 7 F .2 d 1 0 9 6 , 1 1 0 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . S e c tio n 9 2 2 ( g ) p r o v id e s , in te ra lia , thati ti s unl aw ful for apers on w ho has be e n c onvi c t e d of

a f e l ony i n a ny c our tt o pos s e s s a f i r e a r m “ i n ora f

f e c t i ng [ i nt e r s t a t e ] c om m e r c e . ” 18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ( 1) . I n or de rt o c onvi c ta de f e nda ntf or pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m by a c onvi c t e d f

e l on, i n vi ol a t i on of

§ 922( g) , the g o v ern m en tm u stp ro v e b eyo n d a reaso n ab l e d o u b t : “ (1 ) th atth e d efen d an tw as a c onvi c t e d f

e l on, ( 2) tha tthe de f

e nda ntw a s i n know i ng pos s e s s i on of a f i r e a r m , a nd (3) thatthe fi re arm w as i n o r a ff ec t i ng i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D e l e v e aux , 205 F . 3d 1292, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . T he pr os e c ut i on ne e d notpr ove5

th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t k n e w th a t h is p o s s e s s io n w a s u n la w f u l. I d. a t1298. W e ha ve e x p l a i n e d th a tth e c r i me o f p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m b y a c o n v i c t e d f

e l o n i s a c r i me th a t d o e s n o t r e q u ir e a n y s p e c if ic in te n t. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 143 F . 3d 1 4 1 7 , 1 4 1 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . F i rs t , t o the ext entW i l l i t s a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otdet erm i ne that there w as a s uffi ci entfa ctual basi s f or the i nt er st at e c om m er ce el em entt o sup po rt hi s c on vi ct i on , un der F ed. R . C ri m . P . 11 (b)( 3), w e c on cl ud e f rom the re cord that h i s arg u m en tfai l s. T h e g o v ern m en tal l eg ed i n i t s “ N o t i ce o f P en al t i es, E l em en t s, a nd F a c t s ” tha t“ [ t ] he S t a rf i r e a r m a nd P M C a m m uni t i on [ W i l l i t s ha d pos s e s s e d] w e r e m a de out s i de the s t a t e of F l or i da , ” a nd, thus , W i l l i t s ’ s of f e ns e s a t i s f

i e d the

“ i n ora f f e c t i ng i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ” e l e m e ntof § 922( g) . W i l l i t s di d not chal l enge the go vernm ent ’ s s t at em entof fa ct s pri or t o o r duri ng the change-of-pl ea h e a r in g . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s p r e s e n te d w ith e v id e n c e f r o m w h ic h it c o u ld re as on abl y f

i nd thatthe i nt er st at e nexus of the fe l on i n p osse ss i on offe nse w as e s tab lis h e d . A ddi t i ona l l y , W i l l i t s ’ s a r gum e nttha thi s gui l ty pl e a w a s notknow i ng a nd vo l un t ary bec ause the di stri ctcourtdi d n otes t abl i sh thathe un ders t oo d the nature of the c ha r ge s , a nd s pe c i f i c a l l y the i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e e l e m e nt , a s r e qui r e d by F e d. R . C r i m . P . 11( b) ( 1) ( G ) , a l s o f a i l s . D ur i ng the c ha nge - of - pl e a he a r i ng, the6

m a gi s tr a t e r e c i t e d the c ha r ge s a ga i ns tW i l l i t s a s s t a t e d i n the i ndi c tm e nt , a nd W i l l i t s i ndi c a t e d tha the ha d r e vi e w e d the i ndi c tm e ntw i th c ouns e l a nd he s p e c if ic a lly s ta te d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d th e c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im . T h e m a g is tr a te f u r th e rin f

o r m e d W illits o f

th e e le m e n ts o f

e a c h o f f e n s e th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld have t o p rove attri al , and W i l l i t s i nd i ca t ed thathe un ders t oo d these el em ent s. In l i gh tof thi s e xchang e, the di stri ctcourtadequat el y i nform ed W i l l i t s of the nature o f th e c h a r g e s , a n d , th u s , d id n o t p la in ly e rrin a c c e p tin g W illits ’s g u ilty p le a . See Jones , 143 F . 3d a t1419 ( hol di ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta de qua t e l y i nf or m e d the de f e nda ntof the c ha r ge s he f

a c e d by i de nt i f

y i ng the c ha r ge s , ve r i f

y i ng tha tthe de f e nda ntha d di s c us s e d the c ha r ge s w i th hi s a tt orne y , a nd pr ovi di ng the de f e nda nt w ith a n o p p o r tu n ity to a s k q u e s tio n s ) ; c f. U ni t e d Stat e s v . T

e l e m aque , 244 F . 3d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( h o ld in g th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t a d e q u a te ly i nform ed of the charges w here the di stri ctcourtre fe rr ed t o the offens e onl y once du ri ng the col l oq uy, di d n otdet ai l the el em ent s of the offens e, and d i d n otveri fy th atth e d efen d an t ’ s co u n sel rev i ew ed th e ch arg es w i th h i m ). A cco rd i n g l y, because w e c on cl ud e f

rom the re cord thatthe di stri ctcourtsa t i sf i ed the core c onc e rns of

F e d. R . C r i m . P . 11 a nd pr ope r l y de t e r m i ne d tha tthe r e w a s a s uf f i c i e nt factu al b asi s t o su p p o rtth e g u i l ty p l ea, w e affi rm W i l l i t s’ s co n v i ct i o n s.7 II. W i l l i t s ne xta r gue s tha thi s pr i orc onvi c t i ons di d notqua l i f y a s vi ol e nt f e l oni e s f orpurpos e s of

the a r m e d c a r e e rc r i m i na l e nha nc e m e nt . H e not e s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha the ha d s i x pr e di c a t e of f e ns e s , a l l of

f e ns e s i nvol vi ng

“ cond uctthatpres ent s ase ri ou s pot ent i al ri sk of ph ys i ca l i nj ury t o ano ther” un der 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e )( 1)(B )( i i ) – a f i rs tdegree f

el on y burgl ary c on vi ct i on , three thi rd de gr e e f e l ony bur gl a ry c onvi c t i ons , a nd tw o thi r d de gr e e f e l ony tr e s pa s s i ng w i th a f ir e a r m c o n v ic tio n s .

“ [W e rev i ew ] th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ap p l i cat i o n o f th e sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n es de no vo and i t s f

i nd i ng s of f

ac t s f or cl ea r e rr or. ” U

ni t e d Stat e s v . G r ant , 397 F . 3d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . We a l s o r e v i e w de no vo w h eth er a p art i cu l ar o ffen se c o n s titu te s a v io le n t f

e lo n y u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) . U ni t e d Stat e s v . W

i lke rs on , 2 8 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . U nd er18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e ), a def endanti s a n arm ed ca re ercr i m i nal i f he has th ree p rev i o u s co n v i ct i o n s fo r, i n t er al i a, v i o l en tfel o n i es. B u rg l ary q u al i fi es as a v io le n t f e lo n y . 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) , 2 ( B ) ( ii) ; s e e al s o U ni t e d Stat e s v . J

ohns on , 39 9 F . 3d 12 97 , 13 02 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( st at i ng thatbu rgl ary i s acr i m e of vi ol ence un der U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 1). H er e, the i nd i ctm ental l eged thatW i l l i t s had m ore than th r e e b u r g la ry c o n v ic tio n s . R e ly in g o n th e d e s c r ip tio n o f th e s e o f f e n s e s s e t f

o r th in8

the i ndi c tm e nta nd W i l l i t s ’ s a dm i s s i on of the s e of f e ns e s dur i ng hi s pl e a c ol l oquy [ R . V ol . 2, T r . 21. ] , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de t e r m i ni ng thatW i l l i t s had suff

i ci entpredi ca t e off

ense s t o j ust i fy the i m po si t i on of the arm ed c a r e e rc r im in a l e n h a n c e m e n t. III. F i na l l y , W i l l i t s a r gue s tha the di d nota dm i tthe e xi s t e nc e of a l l of hi s pr i or c onvi c t i ons , nordi d he a dm i ttha tthe c onvi c t i ons c ons t i tut e d vi ol e ntf e l oni e s f or p u rp o ses o f th e arm ed career crim i n al en h an cem en t . M o reo v er, h e co n t en d s, th ese co n v i ct i o n s w ere n o tp ro v en t o a j u ry b eyo n d a reaso n ab l e d o u b t . T h u s, h e arg u es, hi s pr i orc onvi c t i ons s houl d notbe us e d t o c om put e hi s s e nt e nc e , a s s e nt e nc i ng hi m on the ba s i s of

the s e pr i orc onvi c t i ons w oul d vi ol a t e hi s S i xth A m e ndm e nt ri g h t s. B ec ause W i l l i t s pre se rved hi s c on st i tut i on al cl ai m by ra i si ng i ti n the di stri ct court , w e r evi ew hi s s ent ence de no vo , b u t w ill r e v e r s e o n ly f o rh a r m f u l e rr o r . U ni t e d Stat e s v . P az , 40 5 F . 3d 94 6, 94 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). In A lm enda rez- T

orre s v . U

ni t ed Stat es , 523 U . S . 224, 118 S . C t . 1219, 140 L . E d. 2d 3 5 0 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t n e e d n o t a lle g e in its i nd i ctm entand n ee d n otprov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthata def endanthad pr i orc onvi c t i ons f

ora di s tr i c tc our tt o us e thos e c onvi c t i ons f orpurpos e s of9

e nha nc i ng a s e nt e nc e . I n App re nd iv. N ew Je rs ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 , 4 9 0 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 2 3 4 8 , 2 3 6 2 - 6 3 , 1 4 7 L . E d . 2 d 4 3 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t p r o n o u n c e d th a t,

“ [o] ther than the fa ctof a pri or conv i ct i on , any f ac tthati ncre as es the penal ty f or a c r i m e be y ond the pr e s c r i be d s t a tut ory m a xi m um m us tbe s ubm i tt e d t o a j ury , a nd prov ed beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” T he S up re m e C ou rtre vi si t ed the Appr e ndi rul e i n B lake l

y v . W as hi ngton , 5 4 2 U. S. 2 9 6 , 3 0 3 , 1 2 4 S. Ct . 2 5 3 1 , 2 5 3 7 , 1 5 9 L. E d. 2d 403 ( 2004) , a nd the C our tc l a r i f i e d tha t“ the ‘ s t a tut ory m a xi m um ’ f or Appr e ndipurpos e s i s the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e a j udge m a y i m pos e s ol e l y on the basi s of the fa ct s r ef

l ec t ed i n the j ury ver di ctor adm i tt ed by the defendant . ” I n B oo ke r , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe m a nda t ory na tur e of the G u id e lin e s r e n d e r e d th e m in c o m p a tib le w ith th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t’s g u a r a n te e to th e r ig h t to a ju ry tr ia l. U ni t ed Stat es v. B oo ke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) . T he C our te xpl i c i t l y r e a f f i r m e d i t s r a t i ona l e i n Appr e ndithat

“ [a ] ny fa ct(other than a pri or conv i ct i on ) w hi ch i s nec es sa ry t o sup po rta s ent ence exce edi ng the m axi m um autho ri ze d b y the fa ct s e st abl i shed by a pl eaof gu i l ty or a j ury ve r di c tm us tbe a dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntorpr ove d t o a j ury be y ond a re as on abl e dou bt . ” I

d. at24 4, 12 5 S . C t . at75 6. A ft er B oo ke r , w e hel d that A lm enda rez- T

orre s “ w as l eftu n d i stu rb ed b y Appr e ndi , B la ke ly , a nd B oo ke r , ” a nd that“ a di stri ctcourtdo es no terr by r el yi ng on pri or conv i ct i on s t o enh ance a10

defe nd ant ’ s s ent ence . ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . She l ton , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 29 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) .R e c e nt l y i n Sh epard v. U ni t ed Stat es , a pl ural i ty of the S up re m e C ou rt expl ai ned thata di sput e over w hether abu rgl ary w as a vi ol entfe l on y f or pu rposes of the A c tbe c aus e i tw a s c om m i tt e d i n a bui l di ng ore nc l os e d s pa c e c oul d be

“ de s c r i be d a s a f

a c tabouta pr i orc onvi c t i on. ” 544 U . S . 13, __, 125 S . C t . 1254, 1262- 63, 161 L . E d. 2d 205 ( 2005) . N e ve r the l e s s , the pl ur a l i ty not e d tha tthe de t e r m i na t i on w a s “ t oo f a rr e m ove d f

r om the c onc l us i ve s i gni f i c a nc e of a pr i or j udi c i a l r e c or d, a nd t oo m uc h l i ke the f i ndi ngs s ubj e c tt o Jones [ v. U ni t ed Stat es , 526 U . S . 227, 119 S . C t . 1215, 143 L . E d. 2d 311 ( 1999) ] a nd Appr e ndi , t o say that A lm enda rez- T

orre s cl ea rl y autho ri ze s aj ud ge t o res ol ve the di sput e. ” I d. A ft er Sh ep a rd , w e n o te d th a t A lm enda rez- T orre s m u s t b e f

o llo w e d b e c a u s e , w h ile Sh ep a rd “ m ay ar gu abl y c as tdo ub ton the future prospect s of A lm enda rez- T orre s ’s h o ld in g r e g a r d in g p r io rc o n v ic tio n s , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s n o t e x p lic itly ove rrul e d A lm enda rez- T orre s . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. C am acho -I ba rquen , 410 F . 3d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 1 6 n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . I n a n o th e rc a s e , w e n o te d th a t Sh ep a rd doe s not a l t e rthe unde r s t a ndi ng tha t“ be c a us e the pr i or - c onvi c t i on e xc e pt i on r e m a i ns un di sturbed aft er B oo ke r , a di s tr i c tc our tdoe s note rrby r e l y i ng on pr i or conv i ct i on s t o enh ance a def endant ’ s s ent ence . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. O rdun o-Mi re l es ,11

4 0 5 F .3 d 9 6 0 , 9 6 2 & n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 2 2 3 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e c on cl ud e f

rom the re cord thatthe i m po si t i on of the arm ed ca re er c r i m i na l e nha nc e m e ntunde r§ 4B 1. 4, di d noti m pl i c a t e the Appr e ndi/

B la ke ly / B oo ke rl i ne of

c a s e s , a s thos e c a s e s c l e a r l y e xe m ptpr i or c onvi c t i ons f

r om the ty pe s of

f a c t s tha tm us tbe a dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntor pr ove d t o a j ury be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubti n or de rt o s uppor ta s e nt e nc i ng enhancem ent . M oreover, un t i l the S up re m e C ou rtho l ds otherw i se , A lm enda rez- T

orre s r e m a in s th e la w . Se e e . g. , O rdun o-Mi re l es , 405 F . 3d a t963. B e c a us e , pur s ua ntt o A lm enda rez- T orre s , a d is tr ic t c o u r t d o e s n o t v io la te th e S ix th A m en d m en tw h en i ten h an ces a d efen d an t ’ s sen t en ce b ased o n p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d n o e rr o rb y d o in g s o . F o rth e ab o v e - s ta te d r e a s o n s , w e a f f ir m W illits ’s c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s . AF F I RME D.