Richard Goodwin v. United States

Seventh Circuit

Richard Goodwin v. United States

600 F. App'x 483

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedApril 22, 2015

Docket14-3551

StatusUnpublished

This text of 600 F. App'x 483 (Richard Goodwin v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Goodwin v. United States, 600 F. App'x 483 (7th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Richard Goodwin filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). In 2003 a jury found Goodwin guilty of possessing a firearm as a felon. See id. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing the district court pointed to three previous felony convictions and sentenced him as a career offender to 235 months’ imprisonment. See id. § 924(e)(1). Goodwin appealed, and we affirmed the conviction but remanded for the district court to consider only whether it would have imposed the same sentence in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The district court said on remand that it would have imposed the same sentence, and we affirmed. United States v. Goodwin, 173 Fed.Appx. 506 (7th Cir.2006).

In 2013 Goodwin filed a motion under § 2255 asserting violations of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when the court relied on the three prior felony convictions to sentence him as a career offender without having a jury find the fact of the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. See Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). The district court denied his motion, concluding that under Almendarez-Torres v. United States, felonies that form the basis for a § 924(e)(1) sentence en *484 hancement need not be found by a jury. 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). A few days later the judge issued a certificate of appealability.

On appeal Goodwin concedes that Al-mendarez-Torrés forecloses his argument, and so he seeks merely to preserve the issue for review in the Supreme Court. We have many times stated that the rule announced in Almendarez-Torres was not changed by Alleyne and remains good law. See United States v. Long, 748 F.3d 322, 329 (7th Cir.2014); United States v. Johnson, 743 F.3d 1110, 1111 (7th Cir.2014); United States v. Boyce, 742 F.3d 792, 799 (7th Cir.2014). We are bound by Almen-darez-Torres and leave to the Supreme Court whether to revisit that decision.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Richard Goodwin filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). In 2003 a jury found Goodwin guilty of possessing a firearm as a felon. See id. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing the district court pointed to three previous felony convictions and sentenced him as a career offender to 235 months’ imprisonment. See id. § 924(e)(1). Goodwin appealed, and we affirmed the conviction but remanded for the district court to consider only whether it would have imposed the same sentence in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The district court said on remand that it would have imposed the same sentence, and we affirmed. United States v. Goodwin, 173 Fed.Appx. 506 (7th Cir.2006).

In 2013 Goodwin filed a motion under § 2255 asserting violations of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when the court relied on the three prior felony convictions to sentence him as a career offender without having a jury find the fact of the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. See Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). The district court denied his motion, concluding that under Almendarez-Torres v. United States, felonies that form the basis for a § 924(e)(1) sentence en *484 hancement need not be found by a jury. 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). A few days later the judge issued a certificate of appealability.

On appeal Goodwin concedes that Al-mendarez-Torrés forecloses his argument, and so he seeks merely to preserve the issue for review in the Supreme Court. We have many times stated that the rule announced in Almendarez-Torres was not changed by Alleyne and remains good law. See United States v. Long, 748 F.3d 322, 329 (7th Cir.2014); United States v. Johnson, 743 F.3d 1110, 1111 (7th Cir.2014); United States v. Boyce, 742 F.3d 792, 799 (7th Cir.2014). We are bound by Almen-darez-Torres and leave to the Supreme Court whether to revisit that decision.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

600 F. App'x 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-goodwin-v-united-states-ca7-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack