Opinion ID: 2756999
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Arguments Foreclosed by Binding Precedent

Text: For the first time on appeal, Broomfield also argues that: (1) the felon in possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), is unconstitutional; and (2) his sentence is unconstitutional because the district court used facts not proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt—his prior criminal convictions—to increase the statutory 15 Case: 13-15827 Date Filed: 12/03/2014 Page: 16 of 18 minimum punishment. Broomfield acknowledges, and we agree, that both of these points are foreclosed by binding precedent. First, this Court has upheld the constitutionality of the felon in possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). United States v. Nichols, 124 F.3d 1265, 1266 (11th Cir. 1997). In rejecting a constitutional challenge to the statute, this court stated, “the Supreme Court has held that the phrase ‘in or affecting commerce’ indicates a Congressional intent to assert its full Commerce Clause power.” Id. at 1266. This court has also “repeatedly held that Section 922(g)(1) is not a facially unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause because it contains an express jurisdictional requirement.” United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011). 4 The jurisdictional element of the felon in possession statute is constitutionally applied “when the firearm in question has a ‘minimal nexus’ to interstate commerce.” Id. This minimal nexus is satisfied if the government demonstrates that the firearm has traveled in interstate commerce, as the government did here. Second, under the Supreme Court’s precedent, a prior conviction may be used to enhance a defendant’s sentence, even if the conviction was not charged in the indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See Almendarez-Torres v. 4 Accordingly, Broomfield’s reliance on United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), is misplaced. See United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387, 389-90 (11th Cir. 1996) (stating that the presence of the jurisdictional element precludes the argument that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is unconstitutional under Lopez). 16 Case: 13-15827 Date Filed: 12/03/2014 Page: 17 of 18 United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-47, 118 S. Ct. 1219, 1229-33 (1998) (allowing the district court to consider prior convictions at sentencing); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362 (2000) (expressly declining to overrule Almendarez-Torres); Alleyne v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2160 n.1 (2013) (declining to reconsider Almendarez-Torres). We are bound by this precedent until the Supreme Court overrules it. See United States v. King, 751 F.3d 1268, 1280 (11th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, Broomfield cannot show error, much less plain error, with respect to these two claims. See United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining that we review only for plain error an issue raised for the first time on appeal).