USA v. Michael Orlando Champagnie, No. 15-10400 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-10400 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-10400 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80142-KLR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL ORLANDO CHAMPAGNIE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (July 9, 2015) Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 15-10400 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 2 of 3 Michael Orlando Champagnie appeals his 24-month sentence, imposed below the applicable guideline range, after pleading guilty to one count of illegal entry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On appeal, Champagnie argues that the district court lacked the authority to apply a 12-level increase to his base offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B), based upon a prior conviction that was neither charged in the indictment nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. “We review constitutional sentencing issues de novo.” United States v. Steed, 548 F.3d 961, 978 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We also “review questions of law with respect to the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo.” United States v. Garza-Mendez, 735 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court held, in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), that the government need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had prior convictions nor allege those prior convictions in its indictment in order to use those convictions to enhance a defendant’s statutory maximum sentence. Id. at 226–27, 118 S. Ct. at 1222. We have recognized that we are “bound to follow Almendarez-Torres unless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules that decision.” United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 1028, 1035 (11th Cir. 2001). 2 Case: 15-10400 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 3 of 3 We have affirmed a guideline range enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), which differs from § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B), only in the number of levels of the enhancement, against a similar challenge to the use of a prior conviction not charged in the indictment and proved to a jury, noting that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 (2004), left Almendarez-Torres undisturbed. United States v. Orduno-Mireles, 405 F.3d 960, 962 (11th Cir. 2005). As Champagnie concedes, binding precedent forecloses his argument that the district court erred by enhancing his advisory guideline range based on a prior conviction not charged in the indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, upon review of the record and careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
