United States of America v. Carl Crawford

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 06-2840
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
CARL CRAWFORD,
Appellant.
____________
On Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
(D. C. No. 03-cr-00105-2)
District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 10, 2008
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and ROTH , Circuit Judges.
(Filed: April 17, 2008)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

Even if we were not bound by Ordaz and Almendarez-Torres, we would still1
affirm the District Court’s sentence. The government must establish that the defendant is
a convicted felon to obtain a conviction under § 922(g)(1). At trial, the government relied
on Crawford’s 1993 felony drug conviction to establish this element. In convicting
Crawford of violating § 922(g)(1), the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he
committed the 1993 felony upon which the District Court relied in sentencing Crawford.
2
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
A jury convicted Carl Crawford of possessing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In a prior
appeal, we affirmed those convictions and remanded for resentencing pursuant to United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Crawford now appeals the 240-month sentence
that the District Court imposed on remand.
I.
Because we write exclusively for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and
proceedings below, we will not revisit them here. Crawford argues that his sentence is
unconstitutional because it required the District Court to find, as a matter of fact, that he
had a prior felony drug conviction. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). This argument is foreclosed
by our decision in United States v. Ordaz, 398 F.3d 236, 240-41 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 244 (1998)).1
We have considered all of Crawford’s arguments and conclude that no further
discussion is necessary. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --