NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0633n.06 Nos. 08-3034 and 08-3238 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. DeWAYNE L . WAL KER and CORNEL I US EDRI NGTON , Def endants-A

ppellants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN D I STRI CT OF O H IO

Be fore : SI L ER, COOK, and GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg es. SILE R , Circuit J udg e. In 2007, the district court sentenced DeWay ne W alker

and Cornelius Ed ri ng ton , a lon g wi th mul tip le c o- de fe nd ants , af te r ea c h ple d guil ty

to c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ith the intent to distribute coca ine. Walker appeals hi s sentenc e based on the district court’s a pplication of a two- level fire arms enha nceme nt to his Guidelines sentence . He a lso appea ls—as a violation of his Sixth A me ndme nt r ig ht t o a jur y tr ia l—t he us e of his pr ior fe lony c on vic tio ns to e nh anc e his Guidelines rang e. Edring ton appea ls his sentenc e as proce durally unrea sonable because the district
c ourt fa ile d to e xpla in i ts r e

je c tio n o f h is s e nte nc e dis pa ri ty argume nt. F or

the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , we AF F I RM. BACK GR OUNDA. DeWayne Walker

Walker pled guilty

to conspirac y

to possess with intent to di stribute coca ine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1), 841(b)(1)( A), and 846. I n his plea ag ree ment, Walker ac knowledg ed a twolevel enha nceme nt to his base offense level for firea rm possession. Wit h a criminal history of I Iand an off ense le vel of 33, he fac ed a r ecommende d Guidelines ra ng e o f 1 5 1 t o 1 8 8 months of im p r i s o n m e n t
. B a s e d o n h i s c o o p e r a t i o n , t h e g o v e r n m e n t m o v e d f

o r a t h r e e - l e v e l r e du c tio n in Wal ke r’ s o ff

e ns e le ve l; this ne w o ff

e ns e le ve l su g g e ste d a Gui de lin e s sen te nc e of 10 8 to 13 5 mo nth s. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

se nte nc e d Wa lke r t o 1 08 mon ths
. On a pp e a l, Wa lke r a

rgue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in a pp lyingth e tw o-l eve l f

ir e arm s enhanc ement. He further

argues t hat t he convictions used t o calc ulate his criminal hi story wer e not proven bey ond a rea sonable doubt a nd there fore their use in computing his Guidelines rang e violated his Sixth A me ndme nt r ig ht t o a jur y tr ia l. B. Cornelius E drington Ed ri ng ton pled g uil ty

to c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w iththe int e nt t o d istri bu te c oc a ine in
v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , a n d 8 4 6
. W i t h a

c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y c a t e g o r y o f III and an of fens e l ev el o f 31, he fa ced a rec ommended Guidelines r ang e of 135 to 168 months of imprisonment. The district co urt did not gr ant Edring ton any reduc tions in hi s offe nse leve l and sentenc ed him to 140 months of imprisonm ent. On appea l, Edring ton argues that his sentenc e wa s
unrea sonable be cause the district court did not explain it s rea soning in re jecting his sentence dis pa ri ty argume nt. DI SCU SSIO N I. Wa lke r ’s F ir e ar m Enha nc e m e ntWalker ar g ues that the district cour t erre d in app l y i n g t h e two-le vel fire arm e nhance ment under U SSG § 2D1.1. He ar g ues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller re qu ir e s th is c ourt

to
renounc e the pr esumptive conne ction betwee n an o ff ense and a we apon whe n the def endant possessed t h e we ap o n during the commission of the offe nse. Se e Un ite d S tat es v . H ill , 79 F.3d 1477, 1485 (6th Cir. 1996) (“ ‘Onc e it is established that a de fenda nt w as in possession of a we apon duri ng th e co mmi ssi on

of an o ff e ns e , a pr e su mpt ion

ari se s th a t su c h p os se ssi on wa s c on ne c te d to t h e o ff en s e. ’” (q u o t i n g United States v. Sanc hez , 928 F.2d 1450, 1460 (6th Cir. 1991) (abrog ated on other g rounds)))
. Se e ge ne ra lly District of Columbia v. Heller , 1 2 8 S
. C t. 2783, 2799 (2008) (dec laring the citizenry ’s limited right to kee p and bea r ar ms). We do not consider the mer its of Walker’s cla im here. Walke r ac ce p t ed the two-level
en h an ce m en t b y

s i gn i n g a p l eaagr ee m en tb ef o re s en t en ci n g, an d

i nd o i n g s o wa i v edan y

ch al l en ge reg ardingthe g overnme nt’s burden of proof. II. Walker’s P rior Convict ions an d Crim inal H istory Wa l k er ar gu es that since a jury did not determine that his prior c onvictions qualified as
c ri min a l his tor

y po int s, the us e of tho se c on vic tio ns to e nh anc e his se nte nc e vio la te d his S ixth Amendment rig ht to a jury trial. I n g ener al, a f

act that incr ease s a cr iminal pen al t y bey ond the statutory maxi mum falls within the Si x th Amendment’s prote ctions. Apprendi v. New Je rsey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Howe ver, the fac t of a prior conviction rema ins a n exception to the rule. Id. ;
se e als o Almendarez- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 22 4, 239 (1998). F urthermor e, Walker’ s sentenc e of 108 months does not ex cee d the statutory maxi mum. 21 U.S.C . § 843(d)( 1) (2006) (ea ch of the thre e off

enses to which Walker pl ed guilty car ries a maxi mum of 48 m onths, a total max imum of 144 months, compare d to his 108-month sentence)
. For these two re asons, Apprendiallows the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a c tio ns .Walker ar g ues that the pre cede nt of Apprendiand Almendarez- Torres no longe r constitutes

g ood law. See generally She pard v. United States , 5 4 4 U. S
. 1 3 , 2 8 (2 0 0 5 ) ( T h o m as , J
. , co n cu rr i n g) (“The parties do not request it here , but in an appropr iate ca se, this Court should consider Al me nd ar e z- Torre s’ continuing via

bility .”). H oweve r, t his court has a lrea dy ref used Walker’ s argument; the Supreme Court ma intains “ ‘the prer og ative of overr uling its own de cisions.’” United Sta te s v . H ill , 4 4 0 F. 3 d

2 9 2 , 2 9 9 n . 3 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Tenet v. Doe , 544 U.S. 1, 10-11 (2005))
. III. Reasonableness of

Edrin gton’s Sentence Edring ton argues that the district cour t imposed a proc edura lly unrea sonable sente nce beca use it failed to explain why it rejec ted his argument ab o u t the disparityof his and his code fe nd ants ’ s e nte nc e s. This court re views the district c ourt’s sentenc ing decision for rea sonablene ss. United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 383 ( 6th Cir
. 2005). A sente nce w here the district court c onsidered a proper ly calc ulated Guidelines r ang e is presumptively rea sonable. United States v. W illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 708 ( 6th Cir. 2006). To deter mine the proc edura l rea sonablene ss of a sentence, we ensure t hat t he district cour t

“ ‘a de qu a te ly expla in[e d] th e c ho se n s e nte nc e to a llo w f or me anin g fu l a

pp e llate re vie w a

nd to promote the pe rce ption of fair se ntencing .’” United States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 580 (quoting Uni ted Sta te

s v . G all , 128 S. Ct . 586, 597 (2007)) (alter ation in orig inal). “The sentenc ing judge sh ou ld s e t f

or th e no ug h to satis fy the a

pp e llate c ourt that he ha s c on sid e re d th e pa rt ie s’ argume nts and has a rea soned basis for

exercising his own leg al dec isionmaking a uthority .” Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).I n the instant case , the district court hear d Edring ton’s argument, asked f or a r esponse f

rom the gover nment, and noti fied Edrington that it would take his arg ument into account. The district
co u rt met its burden under Ri ta by fo llo wi ngthe c or

re c t se nte nc ingpr oc e dure s and a de qu a te ly
e x p l a i n i n g i t s b a s i s f

o r t h e s e n t e n c e . T h u s , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rts e n t e n c e d E dr i n g t o nr e a s o n a

b l y. AFF I RMED.