Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Briawn D. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-26
Citations: 163 F. App'x 418
Docket Number: No. 05-2768
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Briawn D. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, and Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 418–419

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Briawn D. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-2768.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 25, 2006.
Decided Jan. 26, 2006.
Rehearing And Rehearing En Banc Denied Feb. 21, 2006.
Thomas S. Ratcliffe, Office of the United States Attorney, Hammond, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
H. Jay Stevens, Indiana Federal Community Defenders, Inc., South Bend, IN, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, and Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
Briawn Jackson raises two issues on appeal: (1) that an enhancement of his offense level based on a finding of loss amount that was neither proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt nor stipulated to by Jackson violates the ex post facto and due process clauses of the Constitution, and (2) that an increase of his mandatory minimum sentence based on a finding that he brandished a weapon that was neither proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt nor stipulated to by Jackson violates his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and the ex post facto and due process clauses of the Constitution. Jackson concedes that both issues are foreclosed by precedent — the first by United States v. Jamison, 416 F.3d 538 (7th Cir.2005), and the second by Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002); see also United States v. Jones, 418 F.3d 726, 731-32 (7th Cir.2005) — and brings his appeal solely to preserve the issues for presentation to the Supreme Court. We agree that Jackson's arguments are foreclosed by precedent.
AFFIRMED.