United States v. Otagus Coverson

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30291
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00075-TMB-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OTAGUS DEMOND COVERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 14, 2013
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Otagus Coverson appeals the district court’s imposition of a mandatory
sentence of life without parole. Because his arguments are foreclosed by Supreme
Court precedent, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994–96 (1991), forecloses Coverson’s
argument that the mandatory imposition of a sentence of life without parole
violates the Eighth Amendment because it denies the defendant the opportunity for
individualized sentencing. Similarly, Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523
U.S. 224, 246–47 (1998), forecloses Coverson’s Sixth Amendment argument that
the jury, not the district judge, must determine the existence of prior convictions.
Because neither Harmelin nor Almendarez-Torres has been overruled, see Miller v.
Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2470 (2012); Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151,
2160 n.1 (2013), these cases remain binding. See State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S.
3, 20 (1997) (“[I]t is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its
precedents.”); see also United States v. Leyva-Martinez, 632 F.3d 568, 569 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“We have repeatedly held, however, that Almendarez–Torres is binding
unless it is expressly overruled by the Supreme Court.”).
AFFIRMED.
2