Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen Donn ARGO, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1991-02-04
Citations: 925 F.2d 1133
Docket Number: No. 89-30043
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen Donn ARGO, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WRIGHT, TANG and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 925
Pages: 1133–1135

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen Donn ARGO, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 89-30043.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 1, 1989.
Decided Feb. 4, 1991.
Andrew Levchuk, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant.
Steven T. Wax, Federal Public Defender, Portland, Or., for defendant-appellee.
Before WRIGHT, TANG and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

Opinion:
ORDER
In its appeal from our unpublished Memorandum of January 19, 1990, 894 F.2d 410, the government argued that the district court erred in refusing to enhance Argo's sentence because of his prior first degree burglary convictions. We affirmed the judgment and the government petitioned for rehearing as did the defendant-appellee. Each party has responded to the other's petition.
We deferred ruling on the petitions for rehearing in this sentence enhancement case pending the Supreme Court's decision in Taylor v. United States, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct 2143, 2158, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). Appellee Argo concedes Taylor is adverse to him on the issue of sentence enhancement but argues correctly that we have not yet considered his constitutional arguments. We now consider and reject his constitutional challenges.
At the outset, we conclude that there is nothing unfair about applying Taylor in this case. Argo was well aware at the time of sentencing that the government sought to enhance his sentence and would expect to appeal the district court's refusal to do so. In light of the circumstances surrounding the original sentence, resentencing under Taylor will not contravene Argo's plea agreement. We reject as unpersuasive his reliance on Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. State of South Dakota, 900 F.2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir.1990) (retroactive application of judicial ruling would disrupt Indian tribe's justifiable expectations).
Argo also alleges that enhancement of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause, and is an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional power to the States. Also, he contends that the enhancement provisions are void for vagueness. We reject all three of these contentions for the reasons stated in United States v. Sorenson, 914 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1990).
Our Memorandum decision of January 19, 1990 is withdrawn. The government's petition for rehearing is GRANTED and appellee's petition for rehearing is DENIED. We VACATE the previous sentence, REVERSE and REMAND for resen-tencing.