Opinion ID: 63035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Propriety of the Sentence

Text: Hernandez argues that the district court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when it imposed the 121-month total sentence, because the indictment did not mention his prior offenses and the jury did not make any findings regarding prior offenses. He acknowledges that the Supreme Court and our court have rejected this argument in prior cases, including Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but appears to assert that Almendarez-Torres should be overturned. We review alleged constitutional errors in sentencing for plain error if the defendant did not first object to the error before the district court. United States v. 16 Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005). Under the plain error standard, an appellant must demonstrate: (1) error; (2) that was plain; (3) that affected substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id. “In Almendarez-Torres [], the Supreme Court held that the government need not allege in its indictment and need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had prior convictions for a district court to use those convictions for purposes of enhancing a sentence.” United States v. Marseille, 377 F.3d 1249, 1257 (11th Cir. 2004). That holding was left undisturbed by the Court’s subsequent decisions leading to and including United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Marseille, 377 F.3d at 1257. Specifically, the Court in Booker stated: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Booker, 543 U.S. at 244, 125 S.Ct. at 756 (opinion of Stevens, J.). We have reaffirmed that Almendarez-Torres remains binding law until the Court determines otherwise. United States v. Orduno-Mireles, 405 F.3d 960, 963 (11th Cir. 2005). 17 The district court did not plainly err in sentencing Hernandez. First, his argument must fail because the Court’s holding in Almendarez-Torres directly contradicts his position, and that decision remains binding on us. See OrdunoMireles, 405 F.3d at 963. In addition, the record does not demonstrate that the district court enhanced Hernandez’s sentence based on any prior convictions. Specifically, the district court did not use the prior convictions to enhance his offense level, his criminal history category remained at I despite the prior convictions, and the court imposed the low-end Guidelines range sentence. See R10 at 1248-49, 1255-56. Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err, and we affirm Hernandez’s sentence.