Opinion ID: 68818
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to File Information

Text: Kicklighter argues that the government failed to provide notice that he was subject to an enhanced sentence based on his prior convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 851. He maintains that, as a result, the district court erred by imposing a sentence based on the career offender enhancement. Because he did not raise this argument before the district court, we evaluate it for plain error. See De La Garza, 516 F.3d at 1269. 7 “We review the adequacy of a section 851 notice de novo.” United States v. Ramierez, 501 F.3d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Section 851(a)(1) provides: No person who stands convicted of an offense under this part shall be sentenced to increased punishment by reason of one or more prior convictions, unless before trial, or before entry of a plea of guilty, the United States attorney files an information with the court (and serves a copy of such information on the person or counsel for the person) stating in writing the previous convictions to be relied upon. 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1). However, we have determined these notice requirements do not apply when the government seeks to use the prior convictions as the basis for a career offender enhancement, “so long as the enhanced sentence still falls within the permissible statutory range.” Young v. United States, 936 F.2d 533, 536 (11th Cir. 1991) (considering the issue in the context of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding). Kicklighter acknowledges this precedent but asserts that the rationale for the § 851 requirements should apply even to career offender enhancements. However, our prior panel precedent rule forbids us from reaching such a conclusion since there has been no contrary opinion by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc. See United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980, 1014 (11th Cir. 2008). Because Kicklighter’s sentence fell below the statutory maximum term of imprisonment, which was twenty years, the government was not 8 required to provide § 851 notice. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err by enhancing his sentence as a career offender under § 4B1.1 in the absence of such notice.