Opinion ID: 2978134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Clark’s Sentence Enhancement

Text: Clark’s final argument is that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because it used evidence of prior convictions to enhance the applicable guidelines range without a jury finding that he had prior convictions. Clark concedes that, under the Supreme Court’s holding in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), a prior conviction may be introduced at sentencing to enhance statutory punishment without offending a defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to indictment, trial by jury, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 523 U.S. at 239-47. In his brief, however, Clark cites the concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), in which Justice Thomas stated that a majority of justices of the Supreme Court are of the opinion that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided. Shepard, 544 U.S. at 27-28 (Thomas, J., concurring). Clark submits to this Court that, in light of Shepard, we should require a jury determination of qualifying prior convictions before enhancing his sentence. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that “if the ‘precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’” -13- Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1, 10-11 (2005) (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)). Accordingly, we will not take up here what the Supreme Court has asked us to leave in its hands. Therefore, under Almendarez-Torres and Sixth Circuit precedent, the district court properly considered prior convictions during the sentencing proceedings, so this claim fails. See AlmendarezTorres, 523 U.S. at 239-47; see also United States v. Jones, 453 F.3d 777, 779 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hill, 440 F.3d 292, 299 n.3 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516, 524-25 (6th Cir. 2005).