Opinion ID: 202818
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentencing & Almendarez-Torres

Text: Contreras claims that his sentence was improper because the district court imposed a sentencing enhancement based on his prior convictions, in violation of his rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The Supreme Court has held that sentencing enhancements based on prior convictions are permissible without a finding on the fact of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Apprendi held that factors leading to an increased sentence must be charged in the indictment and found by a jury, its holding expressly excluded prior convictions from this general rule. 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. As we have stated many times, we are bound by Almendarez-Torres unless and until the Supreme Court overturns it. See, e.g., Earle, 488 F.3d at 549 (This court has repeatedly stated post- Apprendi that we are bound by Almendarez-Torres until the Supreme Court expressly overrules it.). There is no basis for disturbing Contreras' sentence. Affirmed.