Case: 14-15184 Date Filed: 05/27/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15184
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80105-DTKH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANA E. TUOMI,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 27, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-15184 Date Filed: 05/27/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Defendant Dana Tuomi appeals his 132-month sentence, imposed below the
advisory guideline range of 151 to 188 months, after pleading guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to one count of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a). After review, we affirm.
I.
Defendant argues for the first time on appeal that the residual clause of the
career offender enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), that was used to
enhance his sentence based on his prior convictions, is unconstitutionally vague.
Generally, we review a constitutional sentencing issue de novo, provided the
objection was raised in the district court. United States v. Steed, 548 F.3d 961, 978
(11th Cir. 2008). However, because Defendant failed to challenge the
constitutionality of the residual clause below, we review this claim only for plain
error. United States v. Weeks, 711 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2013). Therefore, in
order to prevail, Defendant must demonstrate that there was error, the error was
plain, the error affects his substantial rights, and the error seriously affects the
fairness, integrity, or reputation of the judicial proceedings. United States v.
Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005).
In United States v. Gandy, we expressly held that the residual clause of the
Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) is not unconstitutionally vague. 710 F.3d
1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2013), cert denied, 134 S. Ct. 304 (2013). We have since
2
Case: 14-15184 Date Filed: 05/27/2015 Page: 3 of 4
applied our holding in Gandy to claims concerning the residual clause in the career
offender enhancement, since the residual clauses in these two provisions are
virtually identical. United States v. Travis, 747 F.3d 1312, 1314 n.1 (11th Cir.
2014) (noting that the argument that the career offender guideline residual clause is
unconstitutionally vague is foreclosed by this Court’s decision in Gandy), cert.
denied, 135 S. Ct. 148 (2014); see also Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293,
1309 n.16 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (noting that this Court has held that the
residual clauses in the ACCA and career offender provision are “virtually
identical” “so that decisions about one apply to the other”). Accordingly,
Defendant has shown no error, plain or otherwise, as his argument is squarely
foreclosed by our decision in Gandy. And, “[w]e are bound by prior precedent
decisions unless or until we overrule them while sitting en banc, or they are
overruled by the Supreme Court.” United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181, 1189
(11th Cir. 2011).
II.
Defendant also argues on appeal that the district court erred by applying the
career offender enhancement because the prior convictions used as the predicate
offenses for the enhancement were not alleged in the charging information.
Because Defendant raised this objection in the district court, we review this
constitutional issue de novo. See Steed, 548 F.3d at 978.
3
Case: 14-15184 Date Filed: 05/27/2015 Page: 4 of 4
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a
defendant’s prior convictions could be considered and used to enhance a
defendant’s sentence without having been alleged in the indictment or proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998). This holding still
stands, and “we are bound to follow Almendarez-Torres unless and until the
Supreme Court itself overrules that decision.” United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d
1028, 1035 (11th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did
not err when it relied on prior convictions not alleged in the charging information
to enhance Defendant’s sentence.
For these reasons, Defendant’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
4