United States v. Austin

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-28-2008
USA v. Austin
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2355
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Austin" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1134.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1134
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-2355
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RANDALL AUSTIN,
Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00682)
District Judge: The Honorable Petrese B. Tucker
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 6, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, BARRY and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: May 28, 2008)
OPINION
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Appellant Randall Austin appeals the District Court’s imposition of a 240-month
term of imprisonment following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The District Court imposed the sentence after
finding that the government had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the
criteria for application of the Armed Career Criminal (“ACC”) enhancement of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e) to Austin had been satisfied. Had the District Court not applied the ACC
enhancement, Austin would have faced a statutory maximum sentence of 120 months in
prison.
Austin raises a single issue on appeal, namely whether the government’s failure to
charge all of the ACC predicate offenses in the indictment and to prove them to a jury
beyond a reasonable doubt violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. This argument
is clearly foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United
States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Vargas, 477 F.3d 94, 105 (3d Cir.
2007) (declaring that Almendarez-Torres “continues to bind our decisions”); United
States v. Coleman, 451 F.3d 154, 161 (3d Cir. 2006) (stating that “Almendarez-Torres
remains good law”); United States v. Ordaz, 398 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting that
“[t]he holding in Almendarez-Torres remains binding law”). We will affirm.