Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick B. DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-23
Citations: 186 F. App'x 871
Docket Number: No. 05-14770
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick B. DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 871–872

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick B. DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-14770
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 23, 2006.
Michelle P. Smith, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Sandra Woodall Deisler, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government, appellant pled guilty to possession of two firearms after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and the district court sentenced him to a prison term of 168 months. In this appeal, appellant challenges his sentence on the following grounds:
1) Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531,159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), effectively overturned Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and thereby rendered his sentence unconstitutional;
2) The felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), is facially invalid; and
3) The district court erred in enhancing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).
Appellant's first challenge is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267,1273 (11th Cir.2006).
Appellant's second challenge is foreclosed by several of our decisions, including United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270, 1272 (11th Cir.2001).
We do not consider appellant's third challenge because, under the plea agreement he executed and as the district court found, appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the district court's application of the Guidelines.
AFFIRMED.
. The indictment listed 12 felonies appellant had committed between July 1987 and November 2002. All the felonies but one involved cocaine.
. Appellant was subject to an enhanced prison sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), to-wit: a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years and a maximum sentence of life. Under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a), a defendant who is subject to an enhanced sentence under § 924(e) is an armed career criminal. Based on appellant's total offense level of 31 and his criminal history category of VI, the Guidelines prescribed a range of imprisonment of 188 to 235 months. According to the judgment it entered after imposing sentence, the district court sentenced appellant to a term of 168 months "with credit for time served in Florida State custody on related offenses."