F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT AU GU ST 21 , 2 007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1502 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 20 93 1- CR-J AL UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us SANDY DEVO N MCKENZIE, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A ug us t 21, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, W IL SO N and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: De fendant-Appellant Sandy De von McKenzie, who w as sentenced as an ar m ed c ar ee r cr im ina l, appe al s hi s 23 5- m onth se nte nc e fo llo w ing aj ur y tr ia l f orBe cause McKe nzie did not object to the convictions listed in his P SIthat supported his enha nced 1 sentenc e as a

n arme d car eer

criminal, McKe nzie a dmitted those fac ts. See United States v. Shelton, 40 0 F .3 d 1 32 5, 13 30 (1 1th C ir . 200 5) . Abo ut h is c ri min a l hi sto ry , M c Ke nzie on ly ob je c te d to assig ning c riminal history points for two misdemeanor c ases that, Mc Kenzie ac knowledg ed, “don’ t i m p ac t [ h i s ] classification as an ar med cr iminal.” McKe nzie also admitted at sentencingthat he “qualifie [d] as an a

rmed c are er c riminal.” 2 poss es sio n of

af ir earm , 18 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), and thr ee c ount s of dr ug p o s s e s s i o n , 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 4 ( a ) . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. W e first a ddress McKe nzie’ s argum ent that application of the arm ed car eer cr im ina l e nhanc em en t, 18 U . S. C. § 92 4( e) , vio late d th e Fi fth and S ixth A m en dm en ts p ur suant t o Appr en di v . N ewJe rs ey , 120 S . Ct . 234 8 ( 2000 ), Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 124 S . Ct . 253 1 ( 2004 ), and Unit ed S tate s v. Bo oke r, 125 S . Ct . 738 (2005). McK enzie contends that prior convi ctions th at qualified him as an ar m ed care er c ri m ina l w er e not

a lle ge d inhis ind ic tm en t no r pr ove n to the j ur y and tha t, as a re sult, the district court erre d in increasing his sentence bey ond th e ten-y ear statut or y m ax im um pe na lty f or avio latio n of

18 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). Mc K en zi e concedes that the Suprem e Court’ s decision in Alm endarez- Torr es v. United St at es , 118 S . Ct . 121 9 ( 1998 ), “ is an im pe dim en t t o hi s arg um en ts” ; but he a sse rt s that A lm en dare z- T or

re s on ly pe rm its j udi ci al f

ac t- fi ndi ng a

bout the e xis te nc e of pr ior c onvi ct ion s and d oe s no t a llo w“ qua lit at ive f ac tua l de te rm inatio ns” about pr ior c onvi ct ion s. 13

Mc K en zi e fa ile d to r ai se ac onst itutio na l c ha lle nge to his se nte nc e in the dis tr ic t c ourt; so w e re vie whis c la im onl y f or pla in e rr or . S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 129 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . T he re fo re , Mc K en zi e m ust es ta bli sh “ (1 ) er

ro r, ( 2) that i s pl ai n, and ( 3) that a ff ec ts s ubst an tia l r igh ts. ” I d. (internal quotation om itted). “ If a ll three condition s are m et, [w e] m ay then ex er ci se [ our ] dis cr et ionto not ic e a fo rf ei te d e rr or , but

onl y if ( 4) the e rr or seriouslyaff

ects the fair

ness, integrity , or publ ic reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation om itted). Mc K en zi e ha s f

ai le d to sho we rr or

he re . T he S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in Bo oke r re af

fi rm ed thi s pr inc ipl e fr om

Appr en di: “ A ny

f ac t ( oth er than apr ior co nvi ct ion ) w hic h is ne ce ssary to supp ort a

se nte nc e ex ce ed ing the m ax im um autho ri ze d by

the f ac ts e sta bli she d by

aple a of gui lty or aj ur y ve rd ic t m

ust be adm itted by

the defendant or proved to a j ury bey ond a reasonable doub t.” See Bo oke r, 125 S . Ct . a t 75 6. U nde r A lm en dare z- T or re s, w hic h r em ai ns b ind ing pr ec ed en t, “ the gov er

nm en t ne ed

not a lle ge in its ind ic tm en t and n ee d no t pr ove bey ond a reasonable doub t that a defendant had prior conviction s for a district court to use tho se conviction s for purposes of enhancing a sentence.” United St at es v. Cam ac ho- Ib ar que n, 410 F . 3d 1 307, 131 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ; se e al so U nit ed S tate s v. O rd

uno- Mi re le s, 405 F . 3d 9 60, 963 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( expla ini ngTo the extent that McKenzie cha lleng es the a pplication of the 180-month mandatory minimum 2 of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) , we reje ct this a rgument as without merit. After Appre ndi, the Supreme Court up he ld the c on sti tut ion a lity of mand ator y min imum se nte nc e s, se e Ha rris v . Unit e d St ate s, 12 2 S. Ct. 2406, 2420 (2002); and the Supreme Court has not over ruled that de cision. 4 that Alm endarez- Torr es rem ains goo d law “until the Suprem e Court determ ines th atAlm en da rez- Torr es is no t co nt ro ll in g p rece de nt ”) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n o m it te d) . T he gov er

nm en t i s no t r equir ed

to pr ove the natur e of

ade fe ndant’ s pr ior co nvi ct ion s to aj ur

y be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. U nit ed

S tate s v. G re er , 440 F . 3d 1267 , 127 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) . T he re fo re , adis tr ic t c ourt c anf ind f ac ts a bout both th e ex is te nc e an d t he na tu re o f a d efen da nt ’s pri orco nv ic ti on s. Id . Becau se we co nti nue to fo llo wA lm en dare z- T or re s, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr , m uc h le ss plainlyerr , in using McKenzie’ s convictio ns to enhan ce his sentence as an arm ed care er c ri m ina l. 2 Mc K en zi e ne xt arg ue s th at ac er tif ie d c opy of apr int out

of his pr ior co nv ic ti on s was no t “ co ns ti tu ti on al ly suf fic ie nt ” to pro ve hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s. Aga in , bec au se McKen zi e fai le d t o ra is e th is arg um en t b efo re t he di st ric t co ur t, we re vie wit onl y f or pla in e rr or . S ee Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d at 12 98. B ec au se McK enzie fa iled to challenge his prior conviction s used to enh ance his sentence, w e s e e n o me r i ti nM c K e n z i e ’s c l a i m.5

W e tur n to Mc K en zi e’ s a sse rt ionthat hi s se nte nc e w as unr ea sona ble be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c onsi de r ad equa te ly the se nte nc ing f

ac tor s se t out at 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) . Mc K en zi e co nte nds that the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have co nsi de re d th at

he ha s stru ggl ed

w ithdr ug a ddi ct ionand tha t he is a de porta ble al ie n wh o wi ll be subjec t t o h ars h p ris on co nd it io ns . Be ca use Mc K en zi e w as se nte nc ed a ft er the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in U nit ed S tate s v. Bo oke r, 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ), w e re vie whis se nte nc e fo r re as ona ble ne ss i n th e lig ht o f the 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) f ac tor s. U nit ed

S tate s v. W in in ge ar, 4 22 F.3d12 41 , 12 44 -4 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Und er s ect io n 3 55 3( a), a dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r, am ong oth er thi ngs, the natur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse , the his tor

y and c hara ct er ist ic s of

the de fe ndant, the ne ed

f or a de quate de te rr en ce and p ro te ct ionof the pub lic , pol ic y

state m en ts o f the S en te nc ing Co m m iss ion , pr ovi sio n f

or the m ed ic al and e duc at ion al ne ed s of the de fe ndant, an d t he ne edto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a )( 1) -( 7) . T he party c ha lle ngi ng the se nte nc e “be ar s th e bur de n of es ta bli shi ng tha t the se nte nc e is unr ea sona ble in the li ght

of both [ the ] r ec or d and the f ac tor s inse ct ion355 3( a) . ” U nit ed S tate s v. T al le y , 431 F . 3d 7 84, 788 ( 11th Cir. 2005 ).6

W e conclude that McKe nzie’ s sentence wa s reasonable. The district court co rr ec tly c al cu late d hi s Guid el ine s im pr iso nm en t r an ge a s 23 5 to 293 m onths; and the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed Mc K en zi e to the low es t po int of that r an ge . S ee id. (n oti ng tha t “ or din ar ily

w e w oul d e xpe ct

ase nte nc e w ith in the G uid el ine s r an ge to be r ea sona

ble ”) . T he S upr em e Co urt ha s r ec en tly e xpl ai ne d th at

“ a co urt of appeals m ay

apply a presum ption of rea sonablen ess to a district court sentence that refle cts a proper application of the Sentencing Guidelines.” See Rita v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 2456 , 2462 (2007). In addition, McK enzie’ s sentence wa s far le ss th an th e st atut ory

m ax im um sen te nc e o f li fe i m

pr is on m en t u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 924(e). See United States v. Bram e, 997 F.2d 1426 , 1428 (11th Cir. 1993). The district court indicated that it determ ined McKe nzie’ s sentence after co nsi de ri ng s tate m en ts o f the part ie s, the a dvi sor y G uid el ine s, and the se ct ion 3553 (a) factors. T he district court also stated that McKenzie’ s sentence wa s ap pr opr iate and r ea sona

ble and tha t se nte nc ing him to the low es t po int

of his advis or y G uid el ine s r an ge pr ovi de d ase nte nc e that w as suf fi ci en t f or pun ish m en t an d d et erre nc e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt j udge w as not r equir ed to dis cu ss a ll of

the se ct ion 3553 (a ) fa ct or s at the se nte nc ing he ar ing . S ee U nit ed S tate s v. S co tt, 426 F . 3d 1324 , 1329 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that “ noth ing in Booker or elsewhere7

requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitlyconsidered each of the sec tion 3 553(a) fac tors or to discus s each of the sec tion 3 553(a) fa ct or s” ). B as ed

on the f ac tor s outli ne d inse ct ion355 3( a) and o ur r ev ie wof

the record, we conclude that McKenzie has not carried his burden of establishi ng that his 23 5-m onth sentence is unreasonable. AFFIR MED.