[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
September 15, 2005
No. 05-10053 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-00223-CR-J-12TEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FREDERICK LAWRENCE SNYDER, JR.,
a.k.a. William Ball,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 15, 2005)
Before HULL, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-appellant Frederick Lawrence Snyder pleaded guilty to
manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The
government gave notice that Snyder was subject to an enhanced ten-year
mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851 based on his prior conviction
for possession of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1), 851. Snyder challenged the
enhanced mandatory minimum, alleging that § 851 violated the Sixth Amendment
in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403
(2004).
At sentencing, the court determined that Blakely did not require the
government to plead prior convictions in the indictment or prove them to a jury,
and sentenced Snyder to 120 months imprisonment.
On appeal, Snyder challenges the use of his prior conviction to enhance his
sentence, and he questions the continued validity of Almendarez-Torres. He
concedes, however, that this court has rejected his argument.
In United States v. Booker, 542 U.S. –, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621
(2005),1 the Supreme Court held that Blakely applied to the federal sentencing
guidelines and that in a mandatory guidelines regime, the Sixth Amendment
required that any fact that increased a defendant’s sentence beyond the maximum
sentence authorized by the facts established by a plea or a jury verdict must be
1
This court now reviews Blakley arguments under Booker.
2
admitted by the defendant or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 125
S.Ct. 738.
Because Snyder preserved his Booker challenge in the district court, we
review the sentences de novo. United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir.
2005). The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we also review de
novo. United States v. Jackson, 111 F.3d 101, 101 (11th Cir. 1997).
We conclude that there is no merit to Snyder’s argument. An enhancement
based on a prior conviction, even if not admitted by the defendant or proved to a
jury, does not represent a constitutional Booker error. United States v. Orduno-
Mireles, 405 F.3d 960, 962-63 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Camacho-
Ibarquen, 404 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court’s decision in
Shepard v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (2005), does not alter this conclusion.
United States v. Gallegos-Aguero, 409 F.3d 1274, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2005);
Camacho-Ibarquen, 404 F.3d at 1290 n.3. Moreover, Booker had no effect on the
validity of mandatory minimum sentences. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d
1325, 1333 n.10 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the sentence
imposed.
3