Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Aaron GEDDES, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-20
Citations: 259 F. App'x 423
Docket Number: No. 06-3335
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Aaron GEDDES, Appellant.
Judges: Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI , Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 259
Pages: 423–424

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Aaron GEDDES, Appellant.
No. 06-3335.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Dec. 11, 2007.
Filed: Dec. 20, 2007.
George S. Leone, Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, Glenn J. Moramarco, Office of United States Attorney Camden Federal Building & Courthouse, Camden, NJ, for Appellee.
John S. Furlong, Furlong & Krasny, West Trenton, NJ, for Appellant.
Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI , Judge.
Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION
RESTANI, Judge.
This appeal challenges a sentence imposed after remand to apply the United States Sentencing Guidelines in an advisory manner as required by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Defendant Aaron Geddes was found guilty of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession of a firearm). In calculating the Guidelines range, the District Court imposed a four-level enhancement for using a firearm in connection with another felony. The District Court found that the facts necessary to the enhancement were established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Geddes' sole argument on appeal is that due process requires that if a separate crime is the basis for a sentencing enhancement, the elements of that crime must be found by the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Sitting en bane, we recently rejected this argument, see United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (3d Cir.2007), and held that sentencing enhancements, whether constituting a separate offense or not, do not implicate rights to a jury trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 567.
Accordingly, we will affirm.
. Judge Sloviter agrees that Grier represents the law of the Circuit. Nonetheless, she believes that Geddes' argument represents the better view, as set forth in her dissent in Grier.