Opinion ID: 169277
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: M r. Sm ith’s Sentence

Text: M r. Smith contends that the statutorily prescribed minimum sentence he received violates his Sixth Amendment rights. His attorney refers this Court to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), and United States v. Booker, 543 U .S. 220 (2005). None of these cases stands for the proposition he claims. In fact, the Supreme Court in Harris upheld a mandatory minimum sentence even though it was premised on judicial fact finding. 536 U.S. at 557. Booker did not purport to overrule Harris or the Court’s line of cases, stretching back to M cM illan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 93 (1986), which affirms congressional authority to prescribe mandatory minimum sentences by statute. W e have addressed this precise issue before, in precedent M r. Smith’s attorney neglected to cite. Booker, we said in United States v. Harris, 447 F.3d 1300, 1307 (10th Cir. 2006), “does not apply to statutory minimum sentences.” M r. Smith’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated.