Opinion ID: 2982565
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of Alleyne v. United States

Text: At his kidnapping trial, Weir was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) for brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. At his bank robbery trial, Weir was once again convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Although the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that this was Weir’s second conviction under § 924(c), that fact led the court to impose a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 25 years on Weir’s sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i). Weir argues that under the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was Weir’s second conviction under § 924(c). We do not agree. In Alleyne, the Supreme Court held that any fact that increases the defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence “is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury.” Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. at 2155. The Court made clear that its holding in Alleyne did not apply to prior convictions. Id. at 2160, n.1 (“In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), we recognized a narrow exception to this general rule for the fact of a prior conviction. Because the parties do not contest that decision's vitality, we do not revisit it for purposes of our decision today.”). Weir argues that Almendarez-Torres is no longer binding on our Court in light of Alleyne. We have already considered this argument and rejected it. See United States v. Case No. 13-5643 10 United States v. Weir Nagy, 13-4151, 2014 WL 3632362, at  (6th Cir. July 24, 2014) (“Nagy frames ‘the seminal question’ in his case as, ‘is Almendarez-Torres still good law based on the Supreme Court cases over the last fifteen years [?]’ The most recent of those precedents, Alleyne, leaves no doubt that it is.”). There is no error on this point.