Case: 15-10400 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10400
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80142-KLR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ORLANDO CHAMPAGNIE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 9, 2015)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10400 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Michael Orlando Champagnie appeals his 24-month sentence, imposed
below the applicable guideline range, after pleading guilty to one count of illegal
entry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On appeal,
Champagnie argues that the district court lacked the authority to apply a 12-level
increase to his base offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B), based
upon a prior conviction that was neither charged in the indictment nor proven to a
jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
“We review constitutional sentencing issues de novo.” United States v.
Steed, 548 F.3d 961, 978 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We also “review questions
of law with respect to the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines
de novo.” United States v. Garza-Mendez, 735 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 2013)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
The Supreme Court held, in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.
224, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), that the government need not prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that a defendant had prior convictions nor allege those prior
convictions in its indictment in order to use those convictions to enhance a
defendant’s statutory maximum sentence. Id. at 226–27, 118 S. Ct. at 1222. We
have recognized that 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).
2
Case: 15-10400 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 3 of 3
We have affirmed a guideline range enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A),
which differs from § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B), only in the number of levels of the
enhancement, against a similar challenge to the use of a prior conviction not
charged in the indictment and proved to a jury, noting that United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124
S. Ct. 2531, 159 (2004), left Almendarez-Torres undisturbed. United States v.
Orduno-Mireles, 405 F.3d 960, 962 (11th Cir. 2005).
As Champagnie concedes, binding precedent forecloses his argument that
the district court erred by enhancing his advisory guideline range based on a prior
conviction not charged in the indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Accordingly, upon review of the record and careful consideration of the
parties’ briefs, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3