FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Aug. 22, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11111

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-14068-CR-KMM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

GLENN LYMAN TIPPINS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(August 22, 2008)

Before BIRCH, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Glenn Lyman Tippins appeals his 151-month sentence as a career offender,

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a), because his prior convictions on which his

enhancement was based were neither alleged in the indictment, nor proven to a

jury. Tippins argues that, pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120

S. Ct. 2348 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531

(2004), the enhancement of his sentence was a violation of his Fifth and Sixth

Amendment rights.

We review de novo questions concerning the constitutionality of a sentence. 

United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The career

offender provision, under which Tippins was sentenced, states:

A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least

eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant

offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony

that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and

(3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a

crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219

(1998), the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s prior convictions used to

enhance a sentence are not to be treated as an element of the offense for

constitutional purposes, and as a result, the prior conviction is not required to be

alleged in the indictment. Id., 523 U.S. at 226-27, 118 S. Ct. at 1222. We have
 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 1

3

held that, “unless and until the Supreme Court specifically overrules AlmendarezTorres,” we will continue to follow it. United States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267, 1273

(11th Cir. 2006).

We have noted that, while recent decisions may arguably cast doubt on the

future prospects of Almendarez-Torres, the case is still controlling precedent as the

Supreme Court has not explicitly overruled it. United States v. Camacho-Ibarquen,

410 F.3d 1307, 1316 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). As the Supreme Court has

stated, its “decisions remain binding precedent until [it] see[s] fit to reconsider

them, regardless of whether subsequent cases have raised doubts about their

continuing vitality.” Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236, 252-53, 188 S. Ct.

1969, 1978 (1998). We have held that the Supreme Court’s decision in

Almendarez-Torres “was left undisturbed by Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker. ” 1

United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005). Likewise, Jones v.

United States, 526 U.S. 227, 249, 119 S. Ct. 1215, 1227 (1999) did not overrule

Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Orduno-Mireles, 405 F.3d 960, 962

(11th Cir. 2005) (stating that “[t]he reason for the exception for prior convictions is

clear: ‘a prior conviction must itself have been established through procedures

satisfying the fair notice, reasonable doubt, and jury trial guarantees.’”) (quoting
4

Jones, 526 U.S. at 249, 119 S. Ct. at 1227). We have noted that “because the priorconviction exception remains undisturbed after Booker, a district court does not err

by relying on prior convictions to enhance a defendant’s sentence.” OrdunoMireles, 405 F.3d at 962.

Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we discern no reversible

error. Because Supreme Court and our own precedent hold that prior convictions

need not be charged in the indictment or proved to a jury, Tippins’s argument to

the contrary fails.

AFFIRMED.