Opinion ID: 218512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prior Convictions Were Properly Considered for Sentence Enhancement Purposes

Text: Binding precedent forecloses James's argument that the district court erred by enhancing his statutory maximum based on prior convictions not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 1223-33, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that prior convictions relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime do not need to be charged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt). James concedes this point but contends that Almendarez-Torres is wrongly decided. However, Almendarez-Torres remains binding precedent. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 2362-63, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (holding that other than the fact of a prior conviction any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and explicitly stating that the Court's holding did not affect the validity of Almendarez-Torres ). We have stated that we are bound by Almendarez-Torres until it is explicitly overruled by the Supreme Court. United States v. Dowd, 451 F.3d 1244, 1253 (11th Cir.2006). The district court followed binding precedent and did not err in enhancing James's sentence based on his prior convictions.