Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 1

Statement of STEVENS, J.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUAN RANGEL-REYES 05–10706 v. UNITED STATES ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

MARK LEE SHUMAN 05–10743 v. UNITED STATES ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO BANEGAS-HERNANDEZ 05–10815 v. UNITED STATES ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 05–10706, 05–10743 and 05–10815. Decided June 12, 2006

The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. Statement of JUSTICE STEVENS respecting the denial of the petitions for writ of certiorari. While I continue to believe that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224 (1998), was wrongly decided, that is not a sufficient reason for revisiting the issue. The denial of a jury trial on the narrow issues of fact concern ing a defendant’s prior conviction history, unlike the de nial of a jury trial on other issues of fact that give rise to mandatory minimum sentences, see Harris v. United States, 536 U. S. 545 (2002), will seldom create any signifi cant risk of prejudice to the accused. Accordingly, there is 2 RANGEL-REYES v. UNITED STATES

Statement of STEVENS, J.

no special justification for overruling Almendarez-Torres. Moreover, countless judges in countless cases have relied on Almendarez-Torres in making sentencing determina tions. The doctrine of stare decisis provides a sufficient basis for the denial of certiorari in these cases.