United States v. Allen
United States v. Allen
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20665 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ADRIAN TODD ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-414-1 -------------------- March 20, 2003 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1 A jury found Adrian Todd Allen guilty of one charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one charge of possessing a firearm in connection with a drug offense, violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(c). Allen appeals following this court’s remand to the district court for resentencing. See United States v. Allen, 282 F.3d 339, 343 (5th Cir. 2002). Allen argues for the first time in this appeal that his sentence violates the principles announced
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), because the jury was not required to make factual findings concerning his prior convictions. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).
This argument is thus unavailing.
Allen also argues that his sentence is contrary to Apprendi because the jury did not make factual findings regarding whether he possessed a firearm in connection with a drug offense. Allen is mistaken. The jury specifically found this fact beyond a reasonable doubt by convicting him of the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) charge. Allen has not shown that the district court erred in sentencing him. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.