USA v. Shaquevia Gilmore

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13540
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20486-UU-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHAQUEVIA GILMORE,
a.k.a. Shaquvia Gilmore,
a.k.a. Shequavia Gilmore,
a.k.a. Shaquevie Gilmore,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 23, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-13540 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Shaquevia Gilmore pleaded guilty in 2012 to possessing a firearm as a felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Because Gilmore had previously been
convicted of three serious drug offenses, the district court sentenced her to a
statutory mandatory minimum of 180 months’ imprisonment under the Armed
Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). As we explain below, because the two
arguments Gilmore raises on appeal are foreclosed by binding precedent, we
affirm.
Gilmore first contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) exceeds Congress’s
Commerce Clause power, both facially and as applied. But prior precedent
dictates that § 922(g) is facially constitutional. United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d
1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011). And we have found it constitutional as applied to a
defendant who, like Gilmore, stipulated “that the firearm in question had travelled
in interstate commerce.” See id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Gilmore next argues that the district court violated her Fifth and Sixth
Amendment rights by enhancing her sentence based on prior convictions not
charged in the indictment or admitted as part of her guilty plea. This argument is
likewise foreclosed by binding precedent. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224, 228, 247 (1998) (holding that prior convictions used to enhance a
defendant’s sentence are not elements of an offense and therefore need not be
alleged in the indictment or proven beyond a reasonable doubt).
Case: 12-13540 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
For the above reasons, Gilmore’s conviction and sentence are
AFFIRMED.
Case: 12-13540 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --