USA v. Anthony Jerome Facon, No. 14-10804 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-10804 Date Filed: 09/04/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-10804 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00020-WLS-TQL-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANTHONY JEROME FACON, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia ________________________ (September 4, 2014) Before HULL, MARCUS, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-10804 Date Filed: 09/04/2014 Page: 2 of 3 Anthony Jerome Facon appeals his 444-month total sentence imposed after his convictions for one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and § 2, and two counts of possessing a firearm during the commission of a violent felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Facon challenges the 300-month sentence he received for the second conviction under § 924(c). He complains that because the second § 924(c) conviction was charged in the same indictment, it does not constitute a second or subsequent conviction, triggering the 300-month sentence, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C). Because Facon s position is foreclosed by binding Supreme Court precedent, we affirm. Section 924(c) requires a district court, [i]n the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, to impose a sentence of not less than 25-years imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C). In Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 113 S. Ct. 1993 (1993), the Supreme Court considered whether multiple convictions under § 924(c) arising out of a single criminal proceeding constitute second or subsequent convictions. Id. at 131, 113 S. Ct. at 1996. Over a vocal dissent composed of three justices, the majority held that a conviction for purposes of the enhanced sentences set forth in § 924(c)(1)(C) refers to the finding of guilt preceding the entry of final judgment. Id. at 132, 113 S. Ct. at 1996. This interpretation of § 924(c)(1)(C), the Supreme Court held, allows and indeed 2 Case: 14-10804 Date Filed: 09/04/2014 Page: 3 of 3 requires the enhanced sentences to be imposed even where more than one § 924(c) conviction is obtained in a single criminal proceeding. Id. at 132, 137, 113 S. Ct. at 1996, 1999. Deal thus bound the district court here to impose the enhanced sentence set forth in § 924(c)(1)(C). Deal also binds us to affirm sentences like these, [u]nless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules that decision, or Congress revisits § 924(c)(1)(C). See United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 1028, 1035 (11th Cir. 2001). 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.
