F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Dece mber 2 3, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 05- 1229 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-20645 -CR- CMA UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us STEVEN AL LEN ANT HONY, 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

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 23, 200 5) Be fo re CA RN E S, P RY O R and R O N E Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Steven A llen Anthonyappeals his jury conviction s and resulting sentences for being a felon in possess ion of a firearm , 18 U .S .C. §§ 922 (g)(1) and 92 4(e), and for possessio n of a controlled subs tance, 21 U. S. C. § 844 . Anthony m akes tw o arg um en ts: fir

st , the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing his m oti on for a newtrial af

ter the governm ent’ s witness stated that Anthonyhad an

“ ex te nsi ve pa st” be ca

use thi s un sol ic ite d te sti m ony w as pr ej udi ci al and t ai nte d th e fundam en ta l f

ai rn es s of his tr ia l; an d se co nd , thi s C ourt sh oul d c er tif y the que sti on of w he the r the de fe ndant’ s pr ior c onvi ct ion s m

ust be inc lud ed

in the ind ic tm en t, subm itted to th e j ury , and provedbey ond a reasonable doub t before a court can use the m to en hanc e a de fe ndant’ s se nte nc e as an arm ed c ar ee r cr im ina l un de r 18 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) . We a f

f i rm. Wh i l e o n du t y, tw o d e t e c t i v e s ap p r e h e n d e dA n t h o n y al i t t l e a f t e r 4 : 0 0 a . m. in M iam i whe n th ey

sawhim r unni ng unde rn eath an un de rp as s w ithagunin his le ft hand. T he de te ct ive s se ar ch ed A nth ony and f ound ase m i- au tom at ic Be re tta handgun inhis w ai stb an d, a s w el l a s a ppr oxi m at el y

$1, 700 an d f

our gr am s of cr ac k inhis poc ke ts. A t the tr ia l, in re spon se to que sti ons fr om the gov er

nm en t’ s a tto rn ey

dur ing dir ec t e xa m inatio n, one of the de te ct ive s te sti fi ed

a s f oll ow s:3 Q . N ow , to pic k up w he re w e le ft of f, a ft er y ou se ar ch ed the de fe ndant and f

ound tho se it em s, w ha t di d y ou and D et ec tiv e V ill av er de do n ex t? A . A t tha t t im e w e pla ce d th e de fe ndant i nto our ve hic le and w e pr oc ee de d to w ar ds the D ad e Co unty Ja il. Q. Did y ou ult im ately go there? A. W e w ent to the ja il, and on the way to the ja il I ran the indiv idual on our com puter because w e’ re eq u i p p ed wi t h co m

p u t er s i n o u r v eh i cl e. We re al iz ed he ha d an e xte nsi ve pa st. Whe n th e A nth ony ’ s a tto rn ey r ai se d an a

ppr opr ia te obj ec tio n to thi s la st co m m en t, and a ft er

dis cu ssi on w iththe a tto rn ey s, the dis tr ic t c ourt e ve ntu al ly gave the f oll ow ing c ur at ive ins tr

uc tio n, “ Y ou h eard

the de te ct ive ind ic at e the y f ound the de fe ndant h ad

ahis tor y w ithan e xte nsi ve pa st. T he part ie s have sti pul at ed the de fe ndant i s ac onvi ct ed

f el on and y ou are to dis re gard any im pli catio n by

the de te ct ive ’ s st at em en t the re is an ythi ng m or e be y ond that st ipu la tio n by the pa rti es .” Whe n ac ur at ive ins tr

uc tio n ha s be engiv ento ad dr es s so m e im pr ope r an d prej udicial evidence, w e w ill reverse only if the evidence is so highl y prej udicial as to be in cu rab le by the tri al co ur t’s ad m on it io n. U nit ed Sta tes v . H

arr iston , 329 F.3d 779 , 787 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by

de ny ing A nth ony ’ s m oti on fo r a m istri al be ca

use the pol ic e de te ct ive ’ s c om m en t a bout A nth ony ’ s “ ex te nsi ve4

past” wa s not in curably

prej udicial. T he witness sim ply m entioned th at inf orm at ioninc ide nta lly

w hil e an sw er ing anothe r que sti on r eg ar din g th e ev en ts that ha d tr an spi re d a ft er

A nth ony ’ s arr es t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt pr ovi de d an e xpl ic it ins tr uc tio n to the j ur

y to dis re gard

the de te ct ive ’ s r es pons e an d to c onsi de r onl y th e p art ie s’ st ip ul at io n t ha t An th on y was aco nv ic te d fe lo n. See U nited Sta tes v. She nbe rg , 89 F . 3d 1 461, 147 2 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) ( not ing that w e pr es um e that the j ury follows the district court’ s instructio ns). The suggestion th at w e shouldcertify a question to the United State s Su pr em e Co urt i s ba se d onA nth ony ’ s arg um en t tha t r ec en t de ci sio ns s uc h a s Shepar d v. United States , 544 U. S. __, 125 S.C t. 1254, 161 L. Ed. 2d 20 5 (2005), ha s c al le d in to que sti on the c ont inu ing va lid ity of Alm endarez-Torres v. U nited States , 523 U. S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L. Ed. 2d 35 0 (1998). In Alm endarez-Torres , the S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t “ [a ] n in dic tm en t m ust se t f orth e ac h e le m en t of

the c ri m e that i t c harg es . . . [ , b] ut i t ne ed not se t f orth factors r elevant only

to the sentencing of an offe nder found gu ilty of the charged cr im e. ” 523 U . S. a t 22 8, 118 S . Ct . a t 12 23. T he Co urt c lari fi ed that the gove rn m en t ne ed

not a lle ge in its ind ic tm en t and n ee d no t pr ove pr ior c onvi ct ion s be y on d areas on ab le do ub t t o u se th os e p rio r co nv ic ti on s i n e nh an ci ng a se nt en ce. See 523 U . S. a t 22 8, 118 S . Ct . a t 12 23. P ri or to the se ri es of

de ci sio ns r el at ing to5

se nte nc ing , – Apprendi v. N ew Je rsey, 530 U . S. 466 , 120 S . Ct . 234 8, 147 L . E d. 2d 43 5 (1 99 9) , United States v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 , 125 S . Ct . 738 , 749 -5 1, 160 L . E d. 2d 2 61 ( 2005 ), and B lak el y v. W ashi ngton , 542 U . S. 296 , 124 S . Ct . 253 1, 159 L . E d. 2d 4 03 ( 2004 ) – w e he ld tha t Alm endarez-Torres was g oo d l aw. See U nit ed Sta tes v . M

ars ei lle , 377 F. 3d 12 49, 1257 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). A fter Booker , w e he ld tha t the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in Alm endarez-Torres “ wa s left u n d i s tu r b e db y A ppre ndi , B lak el y , and Booker , ” an d th at

“ a dis tr ic t c ourt do es not err by rely ing on prior conviction s to enhance a defe ndant’s sentence. ” United Sta tes v . She lto n , 400 F. 3d 13 25, 1329 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). D ef en dant p ro pe rl y

not es in his br ie f that this Co urt di re ct ly a ddr es se d th e ar gum en t tha t Shepar d v. United States , 544 U . S. __, 125 S . Ct . 125 4, 161 L . E d. 2d 205 (200 5) “ m ay

arguably cast doubt on the future prospects of A lm en darezTorres ’s h o l d i n g r e g a r d i n g p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s ” b u tth e n w e h e l dth a t“th e S up r e me Co urt ha s no t e xpl ic itl y

ove rr ule d Alm endarez-Torres .” United States v. Camacho-Ibarquen , 41 0 F .3d13 07 , 13 16 n.3 (11 th Cir .), cert. denied , __ S . Ct . __ (2 00 5) . As a res ul t, we m us t fo ll ow Alm endarez-Torres . See H ohn v. U nited Sta tes, 524 U . S. 236 , 252 -3 , 118 S . Ct . 196 9, 197 8, 141 L . E d. 2d 2 42 ( 1998 ) (“ O ur de ci sio ns r em ai n bi ndi ng p re ce de nt unti l w e se e fi t t o r ec onsi de r the m , r eg ar dle ss of whether

subsequ ent cases have ra ised dou bt about their continuin g validit y .” ) ;6

Camacho-Ibarquen , 410 F . 3d at 13 15 ( not ing that “ the gov er nm en t ne ed

not al le ge in its ind ic tm en t and n ee d no t pr ove be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t a de fe ndant h ad

pr ior c onvi ct ion s f

or adis tr ic t c ourt t o us e tho se c onvi ct ion s f or pu rp os es of e nh an ci ng a se nt en ce”) . In United States v. O rdun o-Mireles , 405 F. 3d 96 0, 962-63 & n.3 (11th Cir.) , cert. denied , 126 S . Ct . 223 ( 2005 ), w e re af fi rm ed that She pard doe s no t a lte r the understandi ng that “ because the prior-c onvi ction exception rem ains und isturbed after Booker , adis tr ic t c ourt do es not e rr by r el y ing on p ri or

c onvi ct ion s to en ha nc e a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e.” T his pr ec ed en t i n th is C ir cu it is b ind ing on a pane l of thi s C ourt and i t w oul d be ina

ppr opr ia te f

or apane l of

the Co urt t o c er

tif y to the S upr em e Co urt a que sti on tha t pr ior

pane ls o f the Co urt have c le ar ly de ci de d. We n o t e th a tAn t h o n y’s ju d g men ti n c o rr e c t l y s t a t e s th a th e “p l e a d e dg u i l t y” to b othc ount s inhis ind ic tm en t. I n f ac t, A nth ony

w as foun d guil ty by a jury of both c ount s c harg ed

in the ind ic tm en t f

oll ow ing atr ia l. W e the re fo re m odi fy

the “ Judg m ent i n C ri m ina l C as e, ” en te re d by the dis tr ic t c ourt onApr il 12, 200 5, so a s to e liminate the f oll ow ing se nte nc e, “ T he de fe ndant p le ad ed

gui lty to Co unt (s ) 1 and 2 of

the I ndi ctm en t. ” T he j udgm en t and A nth ony ’ s c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es are non ethe le ss a ff irm ed . AFFIR MED AS MODIFI ED.