Opinion ID: 2982410
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consideration of Prior Drug Conviction

Text: Zolicoffer argues the district court erred when it considered his prior felony drug conviction in its sentencing guideline calculations without having found the fact of the prior conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. He argues the fact of prior conviction increased his sentencing guideline calculation and, under the rule in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), it should have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He acknowledges, as he must, that Apprendi specifically exempted facts of prior criminal convictions under the rule in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 ([W]e need not revisit [Almendarez-Torres] for purposes of our decision today.); see also Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2160 n.1 (2013) (stating the same). He states he raises the issue to preserve it for further review. (Appellant Br. at 24.) The district court did not err by following the law as set forth by the Supreme Court when considering the prior felony drug conviction. Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. -7-