United States v. Lyons Bynum


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Raymond W. Gruender, C. Arlen Beam and Bobby E. Shepherd. --(UNPUBLISHED)-- [4091221] [12-3882]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3882 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Lyons Lonnie Bynum lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: October 21, 2013 Filed: October 31, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After trial, a jury found Lyons Lonnie Bynum guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Appellate Case: 12-3882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2013 Entry ID: 4091221 district court1 sentenced Bynum to 120 months’ imprisonment, rejecting the Government’s contention that at least one of Bynum’s prior convictions triggered the 180-month mandatory minimum under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Bynum appealed the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, and the Government cross-appealed the district court’s refusal to apply the ACCA mandatory minimum. We affirmed Bynum’s conviction but reversed the district court’s sentence. We found that Bynum’s prior third-degree Minnesota drug conviction was a predicate offence within the meaning of the ACCA, thus requiring imposition of the mandatory minimum. United States v. Bynum, 669 F.3d 880, 88788 (8th Cir. 2012). On remand for resentencing, Bynum was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. He appeals this sentence, arguing that—despite AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998)—the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require the fact of his prior conviction to be found by a jury. We affirm the new sentence. Bynum contends that this court can and must disregard the Almendarez-Torres rule given recent indications that a majority of the Supreme Court may no longer agree with it. In a supplemental Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter, Bynum asserts that the Supreme Court hinted at this jurisprudential shift in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ---, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). We recently observed, however, that the Supreme Court in Alleyne “left intact the [Almendarez-Torres] 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.” United States v. Abrahamson, --- F.3d ---, --- (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2160 & n.1). See also United States v. Torres-Alvarado, 416 F.3d 808, 810 (8th Cir. 2005) (“While it is unclear whether Almendarez-Torres and 1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- Appellate Case: 12-3882 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2013 Entry ID: 4091221 its felony exception will remain good law, . . . we are bound by Almendarez-Torres until the Supreme Court explicitly overrules it.”). Therefore, we affirm Bynum’s sentence. ______________________________ -3- Appellate Case: 12-3882 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/31/2013 Entry ID: 4091221

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?