Opinion ID: 175341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Facts Triggering Mendoza’s Mandatory

Text: Minimum Sentence Needed to Be Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Mendoza also appeals his sentence on the basis that a jury, not a sentencing court, must find facts sufficient to trigger the application of the mandatory minimum sentence to which he was subjected. Because we are va- cating Mendoza’s conviction on the basis set forth above, we need not reach this issue. We note, however, that this argument is foreclosed in the Seventh Circuit, because our precedent is clear that judges may determine drug amounts by a preponderance of the evidence that subject a defendant to a statutory mandatory minimum. See, e.g., United States v. Clark, 538 F.3d 803, 811-12 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Price, 516 F.3d 597, 605 (7th Cir. 2008). Mendoza acknowledges this, but states in his brief that he raises the issue to “preserve it for further review” in light of the Supreme Court having granted certiorari in United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. - - - -, 130 S. Ct. 2169 (2010) (the case has been decided since the time Mendoza filed his brief). It is unclear why Mendoza hedged a bet on the outcome of O’Brien. O’Brien involved a provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)—a statute not at issue in this case—that provides for a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence when the firearm used in the offense is a machine gun. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii). The O’Brien court ruled that the fact that a gun is a machine gun is an element of the § 924(c) offense that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to a sentencing factor to be proven to the judge. O’Brien, 130 S. Ct. at 2180. The holding has no bearing Nos. 09-1500, 09-1525, 09-1875 & 09-2431 23 on the validity of Mendoza’s sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). As we have repeatedly held, the amount of drugs a defendant possessed is not an element of a § 841 offense and the sentencing judge can find facts that trigger a mandatory minimum sentence. See Clark, 538 F.3d at 811-12; see also United States v. Washington, 558 F.3d 716, 720 (7th Cir. 2009); Price, 516 F.3d at 605. Amount findings need be determined beyond a rea- sonable doubt only when they implicate a statutory maximum prison term, which is not the case here. See United States v. Kelly, 519 F.3d 355, 363 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002).