Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otagus Demond COVERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-22
Citations: 539 F. App'x 747
Docket Number: No. 12-30291
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otagus Demond COVERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 747–748

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otagus Demond COVERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30291.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
Filed Aug. 22, 2013.
Kimberly R. Sayers-Fay, Assistant U.S., Jo Ann Farrington, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Elizabeth Wallace Fleming, Elizabeth W. Fleming, Kodiak, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Otagus Coverson appeals the district court's imposition of a mandatory sentence of life without parole. Because his arguments are foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent, we affirm the district court's judgment.
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994-96, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991), forecloses Coverson's argument that the mandatory imposition of a sentence of life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment because it denies the defendant the opportunity for individualized sentencing. Similarly, Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 246-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), forecloses Coverson's Sixth Amendment argument that the jury, not the district judge, must determine the existence of prior convictions. Because neither Harmelin nor Almendarez-Torres has been overruled, see Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2470, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012); Alleyne v. United States, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2160 n. 1, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), these cases remain binding. See State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20, 118 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997) ("[I]t is this Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents."); see also United States v. Leyva-Martinez, 632 F.3d 568, 569 (9th Cir.2011) ("We have repeatedly held, however, that Almendarez-Torres is binding unless it is expressly overruled by the Supreme Court.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.