Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luther Wayne SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-22
Citations: 370 F. App'x 59
Docket Number: No. 09-13307
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luther Wayne SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 370
Pages: 59–60

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luther Wayne SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-13307
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
March 22, 2010.
George Allen Couture, Donna Lee Elm, James W. Smith, III, Federal Public Defender, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Susan Hollis Rothstein-Youakim, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Luther Wayne Smith appeals his 100-month sentence, imposed after resentenc-ing, for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Smith argues that the district court should have considered Smith's post-sentencing rehabilitation. Basing his ruling entirely on this circuit's decision in United States v. Lorenzo, 471 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir.2006), which precluded consideration of post-sentencing conduct, the district court declined to consider Smith's post-sentencing conduct. We agree that Lorenzo controls this issue. Smith is nonetheless correct that there is a question as to whether Lorenzo continues to be good law in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and Spears v. United States, — U.S.—, 129 S.Ct. 840, 172 L.Ed.2d 596 (2009). Nonetheless, our circuit's prior precedent rule bars us from overruling Lorenzo without en banc consideration. See U.S. v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1317-18 (11th Cir.1998) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.