Opinion ID: 794838
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Classification of Ossa-Gallegos's prior felony as violent

Text: 10 Ossa-Gallegos first argues that the district court exceeded its constitutional authority under the Sixth Amendment when it imposed an enhancement based on facts not admitted by him and not found by a jury. He acknowledges, however, that the line of cases beginning with Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), permits factfinding by the court regarding the nature of a prior conviction. But he wishes to preserve the issue in the event that the Supreme Court reconsiders Almendarez-Torres. By Ossa-Gallegos's own admission, the district court's classification of his prior sexual-assault conviction as violent does not violate his Sixth-Amendment rights under the current state of the law. See United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 555 (6th Cir.2006) (holding that controlling law, both before and after Booker, counsels that a judge can make factual findings about a defendant's prior convictions without implicating the Sixth Amendment). The 16-level enhancement under the Guidelines, therefore, does not constitute constitutional error.