United States v. Aaron Johnson
This text of 529 F. App'x 977 (United States v. Aaron Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Aaron Johnson appeals his 180-month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). Johnson’s sentence was the mandatory minimum under § 924(e)(1), which states that a person who violates § 922(g) and has three previous convictions for a violent felony or serious drug offense, shall be imprisoned for not less than fifteen years. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
Johnson’s only argument on appeal is that his sentence “runs afoul of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments],” because the indictment did not identify the three prior convictions that supported the application of § 924(e)(l)’s mandatory minimum. However, as Johnson acknowledges, his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). In that case, the Supreme Court held that prior convictions “relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime” do not need to be charged in an indictment or proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. Id. at 228^47,118 S.Ct. at 1223-33. Almendarez-Torres “remains good law.” United States v. Weeks, 711 F.3d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir.2013).
For these reasons, Johnson’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
529 F. App'x 977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-aaron-johnson-ca11-2013.