United States v. Michael Abrahamson

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Raymond W. Gruender, Duane Benton and Bobby E. Shepherd (PUBLISHED) [4073219] [11-2404]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 11-2404
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael Byron Abrahamson
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
____________
Submitted: August 30, 2013
Filed: September 9, 2013
[Published]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Byron Abrahamson was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). At sentencing, the

Appellate Case: 11-2404

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/09/2013 Entry ID: 4073219

district court1 found that Abrahamson had a prior felony drug conviction and applied
a statutory sentencing enhancement that doubled his mandatory minimum sentence
from ten years to twenty years. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). Based on the
enhancement, the district court sentenced Abrahamson to twenty years’
imprisonment. Abrahamson appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing, inter alia,
that the district court’s application of the sentencing enhancement violated the Sixth
Amendment because the fact underlying the enhancement—the existence of a prior
felony drug conviction—was found by the district court rather than a jury. We
affirmed. See United States v. Abrahamson, 685 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2012). On June
24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment,
and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Court’s decision in
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ---, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). See Abrahamson v.
United States, 570 U.S. ---, 133 S. Ct. ---- (2013).
In Alleyne, the Court held that a fact that increases a defendant’s mandatory
minimum sentence is an element of the crime that must be submitted to a jury. See
133 S. Ct. at 2155. However, the Court in Alleyne left intact the rule that
enhancements based on the fact of a prior conviction are an exception to the general
rule that facts increasing the prescribed range of penalties must be presented to a jury.
See id. at 2160 n.1 (explaining that because the parties did not address the recidivism
enhancement exception recognized in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.
224 (1998), the Court would not revisit the issue). Because the challenged
enhancement of Abrahamson’s sentence was based solely on his prior felony drug
conviction, it continues to fall under the recidivism exception to the jury presentation
requirement that the Court recognized in Almendarez-Torres and left unchanged in
Alleyne. See United States v. Torres-Alvarado, 416 F.3d 808, 810 (8th Cir. 2005)
(“While it is unclear whether Almendarez-Torres and its felony exception will remain

1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
-2-

Appellate Case: 11-2404

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/09/2013 Entry ID: 4073219

good law, we are bound by Almendarez-Torres until the Supreme Court explicitly
overrules it.” (internal citation omitted)). Thus, we affirm Abrahamson’s sentence,
and we affirm Abrahamson’s conviction for the reasons stated in our prior opinion.
See Abrahamson, 685 F.3d 777.
______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 11-2404

Page: 3

Date Filed: 09/09/2013 Entry ID: 4073219