United States v. Nickels ( 2005 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 21, 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 05-3168
v.
(D.C. No. 04-CR-40085-01-JAR)
(D. Kan.)
CRAIG L. NICKELS,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, McKAY and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
Nickels appeals the imposition of a statutory mandatory minimum sentence
that was triggered based on a prior conviction, arguing that such a sentence is
unconstitutional where the prior conviction was neither found by a jury nor
admitted by him. As he acknowledges, his argument is foreclosed by the
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
precedent of this court and the Supreme Court. Exercising jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
On February 3, 2004, officials executed a federal search warrant at
Nickels’s residence. The search uncovered a computer containing images of child
pornography, along with numerous computer disks containing similar images.
Nickels eventually pled guilty to possession of child pornography.
Nickels’s presentence report noted that he had a prior conviction for
possession of child pornography. It further noted that, by statute, the mandatory
minimum sentence for Nickels, as a person with such a prior conviction, was 10
years. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2). The district court sentenced Nickels to this
mandatory minimum term.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Nickels argues that the Sixth Amendment requires that a prior
conviction may not be used to trigger a statutory mandatory minimum sentence
unless the conviction is pled in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable
doubt or admitted by the defendant. Nickels concedes that we have rejected this
proposition in United States v. Moore, 401 F.3d 1220, 1221, 1226 (10th Cir.
2005), but contends that Moore was wrongly decided. Whatever the strength of
Nickels’s argument, “[w]e cannot overrule the judgment of another panel of this
-2-
court. We are bound by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc
reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court.”
United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255, 1261 (10th Cir. 1999). We therefore
AFFIRM.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-3-