United States v. Von Brown

DISCUSSION

[1] On appeal, Defendant raises two related issues pertain- ing to the career-offender enhancement.3 First, he argues that the fact of his prior convictions had to be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. That argument is foreclosed by Quintana-Quintana, 383 F.3d at 1053, which held that Blakely, 542 U.S. 296, does not upset the rule that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), carves out an exception for proving the fact of a prior conviction. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 755-56, which applied Blakely to the federal Sentencing Guidelines, does not change the Sixth Amendment analysis. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756 (“Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceed- ing the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Cortez-Arias, 403 F.3d 1111, 1114 n.8 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Because the sentencing enhance- 2 Two of Defendant’s prior convictions were for second-degree assault, a Class B felony that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threat- ened use of…