United States v. Anthony Jerome Facon ( 2014 )

Case: 14-10804 Date Filed: 09/04/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10804
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00020-WLS-TQL-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY JEROME FACON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(September 4, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-10804 Date Filed: 09/04/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Anthony Jerome Facon appeals his 444-month total sentence imposed after
his convictions for one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a), (d), and § 2, and two counts of possessing a firearm during the
commission of a violent felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Facon
challenges the 300-month sentence he received for the second conviction under
§ 924(c). He complains that because the second § 924(c) conviction was charged
in the same indictment, it does not constitute a “second or subsequent” conviction,
triggering the 300-month sentence, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C).
Because Facon’s position is foreclosed by binding Supreme Court precedent, we
affirm.
Section 924(c) requires a district court, “[i]n the case of a second or
subsequent conviction under this subsection,” to impose a sentence of not less than
25-years imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C). In Deal v. United States, 508
U.S. 129, 113 S. Ct. 1993 (1993), the Supreme Court considered whether multiple
convictions under § 924(c) arising out of a single criminal proceeding constitute
second or subsequent convictions. Id. at 131, 113 S. Ct. at 1996. Over a vocal
dissent composed of three justices, the majority held that a “conviction” for
purposes of the enhanced sentences set forth in § 924(c)(1)(C) refers to the finding
of guilt preceding the entry of final judgment. Id. at 132, 113 S. Ct. at 1996. This
interpretation of § 924(c)(1)(C), the Supreme Court held, allows and indeed
2
Case: 14-10804 Date Filed: 09/04/2014 Page: 3 of 3
requires the enhanced sentences to be imposed even where more than one § 924(c)
conviction is obtained in a single criminal proceeding. Id. at 132, 137, 113 S. Ct.
at 1996, 1999.
Deal thus bound the district court here to impose the enhanced sentence set
forth in § 924(c)(1)(C). Deal also binds us to affirm sentences like these, “[u]nless
and until the Supreme Court itself overrules that decision,” or Congress revisits
§ 924(c)(1)(C). See United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 1028, 1035 (11th Cir.
2001).
AFFIRMED.
3