United States v. Lonnie Lee Rhodes , 192 F. App'x 567 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-3650
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Lonnie Lee Rhodes,                       *
    *    [UNPUBLISHED]
    Defendant - Appellant.             *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 15, 2006
    Filed: August 18, 2006
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MELLOY and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Lonnie Lee Rhodes pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm
    in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). At sentencing, the district court1 found that
    Rhodes was subject to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), by reason
    of three prior violent felony convictions for residential burglary. The court sentenced
    Rhodes to the statutory minimum of 180 months in prison, varying downward from
    his advisory guidelines sentencing range of 188-235 months. Rhodes appeals.
    1
    The HONORABLE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, United States District
    Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Rhodes argues that the district court erred in increasing his sentence based on
    judicial findings of prior convictions because the Supreme Court in Shepard v. United
    States, 
    544 U.S. 13
    (2005), implicitly overruled its prior decision in Almendarez-
    Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
    (1998). We have previously rejected this
    contention, concluding that “we are bound by Almendarez-Torres until the Supreme
    Court explicitly overrules it.” United States v. Torres-Alvarado, 
    416 F.3d 808
    , 810
    (8th Cir. 2005). He further argues that the district court violated his Sixth
    Amendment rights under United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005), because the
    court, rather than a jury, found both the fact and the nature of his prior convictions
    in applying the Armed Career Criminal Act. Again, we have explicitly rejected this
    contention. See United States v. Marcussen, 
    403 F.3d 982
    , 984 (8th Cir. 2005).
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-3650

Citation Numbers: 192 F. App'x 567

Judges: Loken, Melloy, Colloton

Filed Date: 8/18/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024