United States v. Otagus Coverson

MEMORANDUM

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.

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994-96 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (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 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (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, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2470 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012); Alleyne v. United States, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2151 , 2160 n. 1, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), these cases remain binding. See State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 , 118 S.Ct. 275 , 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997) (“[I]t is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.”); see also…