[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-11086 AUGUST 15, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-14074-CR-JEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MACK CHARLES WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(August 15, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mack Charles Williams appeals his 188-month sentence, imposed following
his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute in excess of five grams of
crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Because the district court properly
classified Williams as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, we affirm.
Williams was indicted for two counts of possession with intent to distribute
in excess of five grams of crack. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, he pleaded
guilty to one count, in exchange for which the second count was dismissed.
The probation officer calculated the offense level as 34 in light of
Williams’s status as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, with a 3-level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of 31.
In support of the career-offender classification, the probation officer noted two
prior felony convictions for controlled substance offenses. Based on Williams’s
criminal history and his status as a career offender, he received a criminal history
category of VI. The resulting advisory guidelines range was 188 to 235 months
imprisonment. Had Williams not been classified as a career offender, his adjusted
offense level would have been 25, with the same criminal history category,
resulting in a range of 110 to 137 months imprisonment.
Williams objected, inter alia, to the application of the career-offender
provision because the prior convictions were neither charged in the indictment nor
proven to a jury. He conceded, however, that this court’s case law did not support
2
his argument. At sentencing, the court overruled the objection and sentenced
Williams to 188 months imprisonment. Williams now appeals.
We review constitutional sentencing issues de novo. United States v. Paz,
405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). The district court’s classification of a
defendant as a career offender is a question of law that we also review de novo.
United States v. Gibson, 434 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, (No. 05-
10963) ( Jun. 19, 2006).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140
L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that prior convictions need not be
proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We are bound by that decision.
United States v. Martinez, 434 F.3d 1318, 1323 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, (No. 05-
11248) (Jun. 26, 2006). And we have repeatedly held that Almendarez-Torres
remains good law. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005).
Moreover, in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding
that prior convictions need not be proven to a jury, and nothing in Shepard v.
United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), alters this conclusion. United States v.
Camacho-Ibarquen, 410 F.3d 1307, 1316 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005). Therefore, we
reject Williams’s argument. See Martinez, 434 F.3d at 1323; Gibson, 434 F.3d at
3
1244. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
4