United States v. Eddie Thomas Stige

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 23, 2006
No. 05-13787 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-80030-CR-KAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDDIE THOMAS STIGE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 23, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eddie Thomas Stige appeals his 60-month sentence imposed after he pled
guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and possess with the intent to distribute
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. Stige asserts
the district court violated his due process rights by imposing a mandatory
minimum sentence that exceeded the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, violating
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The district court did not err, and
we affirm.
We review constitutional errors in sentencing de novo, but will reverse only
for harmful error. United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005).
“[C]onstitutional errors are harmless where the government can show, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to the defendant’s ultimate
sentence.” United States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005).
In Booker, the Supreme Court held “[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction)
which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the
facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the
defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Booker, 125 S. Ct. at
756. The Court also held the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, and district
courts should take the Guidelines into account when considering the sentencing
factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 757. However, Booker did not
declare mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional.
2
In United States v. Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318, 1320 (11th Cir. 1997), we
held the five-year mandatory minimum sentence applied in cases involving 100 or
more marijuana plants, regardless of weight, controlled over the amendment to the
Sentencing Guidelines that reduced the weight attributable to a marijuana plant.
Additionally, we have consistently held mandatory minimum sentences do not
violate a defendant’s due process rights. See e.g., United States v. Holmes, 838
F.2d 1175, 1177 (11th Cir. 1988) (holding mandatory minimum sentencing does
not deprive the defendant of an individualized sentencing process in violation of
due process rights). In United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1333 n.10 (11th
Cir. 2005), a post-Booker decision, we noted district courts remain bound by
statutory minimum sentences despite Booker’s holding the Sentencing Guidelines
are merely advisory. Further, in United States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322, 1323 n.1
(11th Cir. 2005), we noted the defendant’s sentence for alien smuggling did not
violate Booker because the defendant received the mandatory minimum sentence
based on the facts to which he pled guilty.
The district court did not err in imposing the mandatory 60-month minimum
sentence because Eggersdorf remains good law after Booker. The Supreme Court
has not held that mandatory minimum sentences violate the Constitution, and we
have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences.
AFFIRMED.
3