Opinion ID: 793479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constitutionality of the District Court's Sentence

Text: 28 Finally, Simpson alleges the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it found, independent of a jury, that he had been convicted of two prior felonies. This finding, taken in conjunction with Simpson's conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1), rendered him eligible for sentencing as an armed career criminal under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.4. 29 However, the fact of prior conviction is for the court to determine, not a jury. United States v. Nolan, 397 F.3d 665, 667 n. 2 (8th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (Any fact (other than prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum ... must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.). Therefore, the district court's sentence was proper.