United States v. Clint C. Morgan

202 F. App'x 933
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 3, 2006
Docket05-4084
StatusUnpublished

This text of 202 F. App'x 933 (United States v. Clint C. Morgan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Clint C. Morgan, 202 F. App'x 933 (8th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Clint Morgan appeals the 180-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). On appeal, Morgan argues that a sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) had to be alleged in the indictment.

Morgan correctly notes that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1994), disposes of his argument. See United States v. Levering, 431 F.3d 289, 295 (8th Cir.2005) (noting holding in AlmendarezTorres that prior felony convictions are sentencing factors for court, not fact for jury, and thus district court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by making findings regarding prior felony convictions for purposes of § 924(e)(2)); cf. United States v. Raya-Ramirez, 244 F.3d 976, 977 (8th Cir.2001) (rejecting argument that fact of prior aggravated-felony conviction must be alleged in indictment and proved to jury or admitted through guilty plea; citing Almendarez-Torres ). Further, this court has rejected the argument that current law has called the holding of Almendarez-Torres into question. See Levering, 431 F.3d at 295 (Almendarez-Torres is still good law and this court will continue to follow it until Supreme Court instructs otherwise); see also United States v. Kendrick, 423 F.3d 803, 810 (8th Cir.2005) (this court has “consistently rejected the applicability of Booker 2 to the fact of a prior conviction ... and to the legal determination of whether a prior conviction may be categorized as a crime of violence”; sentencing court has authority to take notice of defendant’s criminal history and determine whether any prior conviction is properly categorized as crime of violence).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

2

. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

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

Related

Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court, 1998)
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Jose Arturo Raya-Ramirez
244 F.3d 976 (Eighth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Timothy Martin Kendrick
423 F.3d 803 (Eighth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Merwyn L. Levering
431 F.3d 289 (Eighth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
202 F. App'x 933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-clint-c-morgan-ca8-2006.