USA v. Haywood Norman

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Haywood Norman. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-12260

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-12260
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-00648-MHH-CSC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HAYWOOD NORMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(February 3, 2017)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Haywood Norman appeals his sentence of 180 months of imprisonment for
three counts of possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance, 21

Case: 16-12260

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Page: 2 of 4

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), (D); one count of possessing a firearm in relation to drug
trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); and one count of being a felon in
possession of a firearm, id. § 922(g)(1). Norman argues that the district court
violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment when it enhanced his sentence
based on a prior drug conviction that was not charged in his indictment or proved
to a jury. Norman also challenges as substantively unreasonable his sentence to the
mandatory minimum penalties for his crimes. We affirm.
Norman acknowledges that his challenge to the constitutionality of the
increase in his sentence for his possession of drugs and a firearm as a felon is
foreclosed by Almendarez–Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). In
Almendarez-Torres, the Supreme Court held that a prior conviction “relevant only
to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime” is not a fact
that must be charged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt, even if it increases the defendant’s maximum statutory sentence. Id. at 228–
47. “[W]e are bound to follow Almendarez–Torres unless and until the Supreme
Court itself overrules that decision,” United States v. Harris, 741 F.3d 1245, 1250
(11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), which it has
refused to do, Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 1260 n.1 (2013).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Norman to a
term of 120 months for his possession of drugs and of a firearm as a felon to run
2

Case: 16-12260

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Page: 3 of 4

consecutively to a term of 60 months for possessing a firearm in relation to his
drug trafficking. When arrested on outstanding warrants for trafficking in cocaine
and possessing marijuana, Norman had in his residence 575.2 grams of cocaine
powder; 1,125 grams of marijuana; seven firearms, six of which were loaded and
two of which were stolen; an assortment of ammunition; 2 sets of digital scales;
and 3 cellular telephones. Norman also admitted responsibility for 169.5 grams of
cocaine base. Because of Norman’s prior drug conviction, his statutory mandatory
minimum penalty of 120 months of imprisonment became his sentence under the
advisory guidelines, see 21 U.S.C. § 851; United States Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 5G1.2(b) (Nov. 2015), and he faced a mandatory consecutive sentence of
five years for possessing a firearm in relation to his drug trafficking, see id.
§ 2K2.4(b).
The district court lacked authority to sentence Norman below the statutory
mandatory minimum because the government did not move for a downward
departure based on his substantial assistance, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); U.S.S.G.
§ 5K1.1, and he was not eligible for safety valve relief, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
See United States v. Castaing-Sosa, 530 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008). The
district court mentioned each of the statutory sentencing factors in determining an
appropriate sentence, see id. § 3553(a), and decided to impose the mandatory
minimum sentence although Norman had a prior conviction for robbery and
3

Case: 16-12260

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Page: 4 of 4

several arrests for possessing drugs. Norman’s sentence, which is well below the
statutory maximum penalty of life, is reasonable. See United States v. Gonzalez,
550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
We AFFIRM Norman’s sentence.

4