TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.
Appealing his drug convictions, Judah Prince asks us to decide two questions of
The second question is whether a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), which criminalizes making false statements to federally licensed firearms dealers, requires a defendant to know that his false statement will be kept in the firearm dealer's written records, as mandated by federal law. Because the records-keeping requirement is purely a jurisdictional element, we hold there is no such mens rea requirement.
Accordingly, we reject Prince's arguments on these two points. And, after a careful consideration of the record, we also reject Prince's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we AFFIRM Prince's conviction and sentence.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) originally identified Prince in connection with an investigation into illegal sales of firearm parts. The ATF suspected an individual had been manufacturing and illegally selling AK-47 "flats" on GunBroker.com, and it traced one of the sales to Prince. Investigating further, ATF agents ultimately discovered that Prince had made more than 150 purchases from GunBroker.com, including AK-47 assault rifles, fully automatic trigger parts, demilled fully automatic weapons, and Uzis. [R., Vol. II at 354-55.] In connection with their inquiries, ATF agents questioned a firearms dealer who handled transactions for Prince. The dealer alerted Prince to the investigation.
When ATF agents located Prince, he admitted to buying the guns and gun parts and agreed to show the agents his purchases, which he kept in his garage. At Prince's Newton, Kansas residence, the agents saw various gun parts and ammunition, and they obtained a warrant to search the house. Soon thereafter, the agents encountered Prince's adult children, who often stayed at the residence. Upon searching the house, the agents found 54 firearms and approximately 10,000 rounds of ammunition. But that was not all. They also found more than 200 marijuana plants in the basement and evidence that suggested Prince was involved in their cultivation.
The government charged Prince with one count of manufacturing marijuana plants, 25 counts of making false statements to a federally licensed firearms dealer, and one count of unlawful use of a controlled substance while possessing a firearm. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (count 1); 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) (counts 2-26); 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(3), 924(a)(2) (count 27). Prince pleaded not guilty. Before trial, the district court granted Prince's motion to suppress evidence seized by the government during a search of his residence, and the court also sua sponte ordered suppression of all evidence obtained by the government from the inception of its investigation of Prince. The government appealed, and we reversed the district court and remanded for trial. See United
After trial, the jury convicted Prince of the marijuana manufacturing count and the twenty-five false statement counts. He was acquitted of unlawfully using a controlled substance while possessing a firearm. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), Prince was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years' imprisonment; this included a mandatory five-year enhancement tied to a prior felony drug conviction for growing marijuana. Accordingly, the district court sentenced Prince to the mandatory minimum ten years' imprisonment.
Prince contends (1) the district court erred in allowing the government to strike jurors for their belief that marijuana should be legalized, (2) the jury instructions were based on a misinterpretation of § 924(a)(1)(A), (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and (4) the district court issued an improper sentence. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude these arguments lack merit.
Prince raises two challenges to the district court's administration of jury selection. First, relying on Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), he contends the government's peremptory challenges, which eliminated jurors who favored legalization of marijuana, infringed his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, he argues his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the empaneled jury was not drawn from a fair cross-section of the community.
During jury selection, the government asked potential jurors whether they believed marijuana should be legalized. Four prospective jurors answered "yes." Later, over Prince's objection, the government used peremptory strikes to remove each of these prospective jurors.
Prince contends this was an equal protection violation under Batson. He says that because the government may not strike jurors on the basis of their race, it also may not strike jurors on the basis of political or ideological beliefs. Specifically, Prince asks us to extend Batson—which traditionally has been applied only to peremptory strikes based on race and other protected classes under the Fourteenth Amendment—to prohibit exclusions of prospective jurors based on their views of marijuana legalization.
We resist this invitation. Prince's Batson challenge fails because, as a matter of law, Batson does not extend to the exclusion of jurors based on their beliefs regarding marijuana legalization. A brief review of the Supreme Court's reasoning explains why. In Batson, the Supreme Court held the "Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State's case against a black defendant." 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712.
Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 168, 125 S.Ct. 2410, 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005) (citations and quotations omitted). In assessing an equal protection claim under this test, we review "for clear error the district court's finding of whether the striking party had discriminatory intent." United States v. Castorena-Jaime, 285 F.3d 916, 927 (10th Cir.2002). In doing so, we "afford[ ] great deference to [the district court's] decision on discriminatory intent, which represents a finding of fact." Id. We review de novo whether the government's proffered explanation for striking the jurors was appropriate. United States v. Smith, 534 F.3d 1211, 1226 (10th Cir.2008). "[T]he ultimate burden of persuasion," however, "regarding [improper] motivation rests with, and never shifts from" the party opposing the strike. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam).
Prince cannot get past the first step of the Batson analysis. Batson originally addressed only peremptory strikes based on race, but the principle has subsequently been extended to other groups receiving heightened protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 143, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994) (applying Batson to sex); Kesser v. Cambra, 465 F.3d 351 (9th Cir.2006) (applying Batson to strikes against Native Americans); United States v. Brown, 352 F.3d 654, 666 (2d Cir.2003) (applying Batson to religious affiliation); United States v. Rudas, 905 F.2d 38 (2d Cir.1990) (applying Batson to strikes against Hispanics). There is no precedent, however, for extending Batson to exclusions based on the beliefs of prospective jurors. And in fact, every court we could find has expressly refused to extend Batson beyond these traditional limits. See, e.g., United States v. DeJesus, 347 F.3d 500, 511 (3d Cir.2003) ("The distinction drawn by the District Court between a strike motivated by religious beliefs and one motivated by religious affiliation is valid and proper."); United States v. Stafford, 136 F.3d 1109, 1114 (7th Cir.1998) ("It would be improper and perhaps unconstitutional to strike a juror on the basis of his being a Catholic, a Jew, [or] a Muslim," but it would be "proper to strike him on the basis of a belief that would prevent him from basing his decision on the evidence and instructions, even if the belief had a religious backing."); United States v. Villarreal, 963 F.2d 725, 729 (5th Cir.1992) ("Political belief is not the overt and immutable characteristic that race is, and we decline to extend the Batson line of cases to this case.").
This position makes sense. Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence dictates that jurors should not be stricken solely on account of race, ethnicity, or sex. Allowing status-based strikes of jurors in classes receiving heightened protection under the Fourteenth Amendment interferes inextricably with a defendant's constitutional right to an impartial jury. The fact that a prospective juror is a certain race or sex is not determinative of his ability to be a dispassionate fact-finder. On the other
We also note that under Batson, a significant part of the harm we seek to avoid by prohibiting certain discriminatory strikes is the harm to the community at large and to the excluded jurors. It is not only the defendant who is harmed by unconstitutional discrimination during voir dire. Excluding certain persons from jury service "solely by reason of their race ... forecloses a significant opportunity to participate in civic life." Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 409, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991); see also J.E.B., 511 U.S. at 140, 114 S.Ct. 1419 ("Discrimination in jury selection ... causes harm to the litigants, the community, and the individual jurors who are wrongfully excluded from participation in the judicial process.").
Hence, there is a sharp distinction between one's status in a protected class and one's views on marijuana legalization. As the Supreme Court has explained in a different context, it may be appropriate for a party to "use peremptory challenges to eliminate prospective jurors belonging to groups it believes would unduly favor the other side." Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474, 481, 110 S.Ct. 803, 107 L.Ed.2d 905 (1990). The Court emphasized that the use of peremptory challenges is "a means of eliminat[ing] extremes of partiality on both sides, thereby assuring the selection of a qualified and unbiased jury."
Prince's citation to other authority is unpersuasive. Prince cites both Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), and Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980), for the proposition that prospective jurors cannot be excluded solely on the basis their beliefs. Both of these cases, however, "dealt with the special context of capital sentencing, where the range of jury discretion necessarily gave rise to far greater concern over the possible effects of an `imbalanced' jury." Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 182, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986).
In Witherspoon, the Supreme Court held narrowly that the death penalty cannot be imposed by a jury where prospective jurors were excluded "simply because they voiced general objections to the death
The story was the same in Adams v. Texas, where the Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute that required jurors in capital cases to swear that the prospect of a mandatory death penalty "would not affect their deliberations on any issue of fact." 448 U.S. at 42, 100 S.Ct. 2521. The Court reasoned that "a juror may not be challenged for cause based on his views about capital punishment unless those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties...." Id. at 45, 100 S.Ct. 2521.
Since these cases, the Supreme Court has squarely limited the doctrine set forth in Witherspoon and Adams by expressly rejecting the "suggestion that [the two cases] have broad applicability outside the special context of capital sentencing...." Lockhart, 476 U.S. at 183, 106 S.Ct. 1758. Accordingly, they are inapplicable here. In the Batson context, death is indeed different. For these reasons, Prince's Batson challenge is meritless.
Prince's Sixth Amendment argument parallels his equal protection claim. He contends the exclusion of pro-marijuana-legalization jurors from the petit jury violated his right to have an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. This claim also fails.
First, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury representative of a fair cross-section of the community applies only to the jury pool—not to the petit jury. This alone is fatal to Prince's argument, because he challenges only the composition of the petit jury. In general, criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to "object to a venire that is not designed to represent a fair cross section of the community, whether or not the systematically excluded groups are groups to which he himself belongs." Holland, 493 U.S. at 477, 110 S.Ct. 803. In Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. at 173-74, 106 S.Ct. 1758, the Supreme Court held that this fair-cross-section requirement does not extend to petit juries—as opposed to jury panels or venires—and therefore does not prohibit the appropriate use of for-cause and peremptory challenges against prospective jurors. The court noted the "practical impossibility of providing each criminal defendant with a truly `representative' petit jury." Id. at 174, 106 S.Ct. 1758. Further, even if we were to assume the fair-cross-section requirement could apply to petit juries, it certainly would not apply to nondistinctive groups identified only in terms of shared beliefs, such as support for marijuana legalization. As the Court stated in Lockhart, any requirement that jurors should hold a discrete mix of viewpoints is "both illogical and hopelessly impractical." 476 U.S. at 178, 106 S.Ct. 1758. The use of peremptory challenges to eliminate jurors belonging to groups that might unduly favor one side or the other is a long and accepted practice in common-law jurisdictions.
Prince's claim fails for another reason as well: the fair-cross-section principle does not apply to peremptory strikes. In Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. at 478, 110 S.Ct. 803,
Ultimately, the fair-cross-section doctrine does not suggest that an impartial jury must be composed of individuals with diverse opinions or ideologies. The Supreme Court has held that "any [] group[s] defined solely in terms of shared attitudes that render members of the group unable to serve as jurors in a particular case ... may be excluded from jury service without contravening any basic objectives of the fair-cross-section requirement." Lockhart, 476 U.S. at 176-77, 106 S.Ct. 1758. This is because "[t]he Constitution presupposes that a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community is impartial, regardless of the mix of individual viewpoints actually represented on the jury, so long as the jurors can conscientiously and properly carry out their sworn duty to apply the law to the facts of the particular case." Id. at 184, 106 S.Ct. 1758.
Thus, Prince suffered no Sixth Amendment violation. He cannot escape the fact that the fair-cross-section doctrine applies neither to petit juries nor to peremptory strikes. It was therefore constitutionally appropriate for the district court to empanel a jury devoid of jurors who favor legalization of marijuana.
Prince also argues his conviction under § 924(a)(1) for making false statements in connection with purchasing firearms should be overturned because the district court failed to instruct the jury about the proper mens rea of an element of the crime.
We "review de novo the jury instructions as a whole and view them in the context of the entire trial to determine if they accurately state the governing law and provide the jury with an accurate understanding of the relevant legal standards and factual issues in the case." United States v. Bedford, 536 F.3d 1148, 1152 (10th Cir.2008) (quotation omitted). We "review the district court's decision to give or to refuse a particular jury instruction for abuse of discretion." Id. Ordinarily, "[f]ailure to instruct on such an essential element as intent or knowledge requires reversal." United States v. Laughlin, 26 F.3d 1523, 1527 (10th Cir.1994).
Section 924(a)(1) provides that "whoever—(A) knowingly makes any false statement
In Jury Instruction Number 12, the court explained the elements of § 924(a)(1)(A) but, over Prince's objection, did not state that Prince's conviction depended on his knowledge of the statute's records provision. Instruction Number 12 required the jury to find:
Prince claims this instruction was erroneous in light of Flores-Figueroa v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009), which addresses the grammatical construction of the term "knowingly" in an aggravated identity-theft prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). Prince argues the logic in Flores-Figueroa applies to § 924(a)(1) and requires us to reverse the district court.
In Flores-Figueroa, the Supreme Court interpreted § 1028A(a)(1)—a statute unrelated to the one at issue in the present case—which criminalizes "knowingly transfer[ing], possess[ing], or us[ing], without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person." The Court considered whether the "knowingly" mens rea element modified the sentence's direct object: "a means of identification of another person." 129 S.Ct. at 1894. The question was whether a defendant could be convicted of aggravated identity theft regardless of whether he actually knew his fake documentation belonged to someone else.
According to the Court, "[a]s a matter of ordinary English grammar," the word "knowingly" in § 1028A(a)(1) applies to each subsequently listed element in the crime. Id. at 1890. Under this interpretation, "knowingly" modifies not only the verbs of the sentence, but also the direct object. Relying on this logic, Prince contends we should apply the "knowingly" mens rea term to all elements of
Unlike the direct object at issue in Flores-Figueroa, § 924(a)(1)(A)'s records requirement is simply a jurisdictional hook. It provides authority for the United States to criminalize false statements made to firearms dealers. Indeed, although it affects the consequences of knowingly lying to firearms dealers—the conduct Congress sought to punish—it does not bear on the nefariousness of the conduct itself. Accordingly, the status of firearms dealers and the forms they must keep on file are not separate knowledge elements under § 924(a)(1)(A) but rather objective facts that must be established before the statute can apply. In the absence of clear language, we therefore decline to read a mens rea requirement into § 924(a)(1)(A)'s record-keeping provision.
This holding accords with our consistent instruction that "knowledge of [ ] jurisdictional facts is not generally an element of the required intent under federal statutes."
Our approach here is not inconsistent with Flores-Figueroa or other relevant precedents. Most importantly, neither Flores-Figueroa nor United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 115 S.Ct. 464, 130 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994)—the other main case Prince relies on—involved purely jurisdictional direct objects. For example, in the statute at issue in Flores-Figueroa, the focus was on whether the means of identification belonged to another person. 129 S.Ct. at 1890-92. In that context, no doubt exists that absconding with someone else's identity—and in doing so, impersonating an innocent and unaware citizen, most likely to his detriment—implicates additional harm beyond the crime of simply using a falsified identification document.
Similarly, in the statute at issue in X-Citement Video, the object of the mens rea term involves the age of the subject of a pornographic image. 513 U.S. at 67-69, 115 S.Ct. 464; see also 18 U.S.C. § 2252. In that context, knowingly distributing child pornography is certainly worse than distributing obscene images depicting
For these reasons, the jury instructions accurately stated the governing law.
Next, Prince argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Specifically, he contends the jury heard insufficient evidence that he knowingly gave false information to a federally licensed firearms dealer, and that the record does not reflect his personal involvement in the marijuana cultivation enterprise. After a thorough review of the record, we disagree on both points.
We review sufficiency of the evidence de novo. United States v. Parker, 553 F.3d 1309, 1316 (10th Cir.2009). Under due process principles, evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.; see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). "We will not weigh conflicting evidence or second-guess the fact-finding decisions of the jury." United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1293 (10th Cir.2005).
The facts underlying this issue are simple. Despite apparently residing at one residence in Newton at all relevant times to the crimes charged, Prince routinely purchased firearms using a different address—in another part of town—that was listed on his driver's license. This was a problem for Prince because ATF inquiries revealed he had never lived at the driver's license address.
As explained above, to prove liability under § 924(a)(1)(A), the government had to establish three elements: (1) the dealers named in the indictment were federally licensed firearms dealers at the time the offenses occurred; (2) Prince made a false statement or representation in the records that the licensed firearm dealer was required by federal law to maintain; and (3) he made the false statement with knowledge of the falsity. See Jury Instruction No. 12. Prince argues the address information was immaterial, and therefore irrelevant, to the requirements of § 924(a)(1)(A), and that in any event, the government did not prove he used a false address when buying firearms. The voluminous evidence in the record belies Prince's contentions.
As an initial matter, we hold that knowingly giving a false address when filling out ATF forms violates § 924(a)(1)(A).
Further, the evidence presented at trial gave the jury ample reason to conclude Prince knowingly lied about his address on ATF forms. First, the government established Prince never lived at the driver's license address—the address he repeatedly provided when purchasing firearms. Detectives showed Prince's photo to the neighbors there, all of whom reported that Prince did not live at the apartment complex. Further, the property manager for the apartment complex scoured her records and found that since at least 2004, no one named Judah Prince or Rex Lutes (Prince's former name) had lived in any of the apartments. Witness testimony supported this evidence.
In contrast, the evidence showed Prince resided full-time at the other residence, where the marijuana and firearms were found. Not only did Prince tell officers that this was his home address, they also discovered the deed and title for the home were in Prince's name, records showed he took out a mortgage on the home, and an employee of the power company testified that Prince had been paying the house's electric bills since January 2006. Moreover, during a search of Prince's house, an ATF agent found a mortgage document addressed to Prince at the home's address, and another ATF agent testified that the house bore indicia of active habitation, including clothing and personal items.
Prince's neighbors corroborated this evidence. For example, one neighbor testified that Prince had moved to the house approximately three years before his arrest, that she saw Prince nearly every day and had regular conversations with him, and that she observed him working in his yard. Another neighbor told the jury he regularly saw Prince mowing his lawn and clearing his driveway. And a third neighbor recounted his occasional conversations with Prince and testified that Prince moved into the house years before the search and seizure.
Thus, the jury heard ample evidence that Prince did not live at the address listed on his driver's license at any relevant time—and that he nevertheless listed that address on ATF forms when purchasing guns from federally licensed firearms dealers. We have no basis on which to overturn the jury's verdict.
The jury also heard voluminous evidence that Prince was personally involved in growing the more than 200 marijuana plants found at his house in Newton, Kansas. To convict Prince for manufacturing at least 100 plants of marijuana, the jury had to find Prince (1) knowingly or
Prince advances several arguments that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of this charge. First, Prince argues it would have been illogical for him to store his valuable gun collection in the same place as a large marijuana growing operation, given that he knew ahead of time about the ATF investigation. Next, Prince contends it was his sons—not him—who lived in the house and grew the marijuana.
Whether it was logical for Prince to cultivate cannabis where he stored his guns is fundamentally a question of credibility—and therefore a question for the jury. At trial, Prince's attorney repeatedly argued that it made no sense for Prince, who knew he was under investigation, to store his firearms in a house with more than 200 marijuana plants. This was an appeal to logic unsupported by evidence. The jury apparently did not accept Prince's story, and we cannot question the jury's credibility determination unless it exceeds the bounds of rationality. It does not: none of the evidence supports Prince's contention that he sought to store his firearms in a neutral location devoid of criminal activity. Rather, he asks us to reevaluate the jury's inferences and concoct a different narrative furthering his theory of the case. This we cannot do.
Similarly, Prince's argument that he was either unaware of the marijuana grow operation, or perhaps merely suspicious of criminal activity, does not withstand scrutiny. The record shows that the marijuana plants in the Newton house basement generated a pungent stench of marijuana that wafted throughout the house. In addition to rebutting Prince's contention that the house's ventilation system masked the marijuana odor, this evidence shows that it would simply have been impossible for Prince to live at the home—which the evidence shows he did—without being aware of the illicit enterprise in his basement. Moreover, in contrast to Prince's gloss on the evidence, the record shows that access to the basement was barely restricted at all. In fact, the basement door was not even locked, but was rather closed with a child-safety mechanism that was easily disabled. This is only the beginning of what the jury heard.
In addition, evidence of the marijuana enterprise was strewn throughout the house. In the basement, law enforcement officers found a sophisticated marijuana cultivation operation, which included a planting bed, grow lights, fertilizers, chemicals, gardening tools, drug paraphernalia, and 204 marijuana plants. Authorities also seized literature with instructions for maintaining a marijuana grow operation, composition books chronicling the progress of the plants, and writings suggesting multiple people were involved in the grow operation. Indicia of the marijuana operation were found upstairs as well, in Prince's living quarters. For example, one
Finally, the jury had the opportunity to match Prince's handwriting with notes in composition books found in the house. The government, without the aid of a handwriting expert, invited the jury to compare the way that the number "four" was written on Prince's ATF forms with the way it was sometimes written in the composition books found around the house. The government argued that Prince wrote the number with a distinct "pennant" shape (e.g., as it appears in Times New Roman font—"4"), while his sons did not, and that this distinction should lead the jury to infer that Prince's handwriting appears inside the composition books. Such an inference would not have been improper.
Ultimately, there is no doubt that a reasonable jury could have found Prince guilty of manufacturing marijuana plants. Prince owned the Newton house, he lived there, and he kept personal items there. Although the marijuana grow operation was in the basement, its odor permeated the house, and it was easily accessible by anyone who could open a simple child lock. Indicators of the grow operation abounded in the house.
In sum, sufficient evidence supports the drug count.
Finally, Prince contends the district court should not have enhanced his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841. Pursuant to § 841(b)(1)(B), Prince was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years' imprisonment for the marijuana manufacturing offense. He also was subject to a mandatory five-year enhancement if he had a prior felony drug conviction on his record. The district court took notice of Prince's prior felony marijuana conviction and sentenced him to the mandatory minimum ten years' imprisonment.
Prince argues the district court's approach to sentencing ran afoul of the rule in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), which provides that under the Sixth Amendment, the government must "submit to a jury facts which increase a crime's penalty beyond the statutory maximum." United States v. Holyfield, 481 F.3d 1260, 1261 (10th Cir.2007). More specifically, Prince claims that before he could be liable for § 841's five-year enhancement, the jury had to find that he had been convicted of a prior drug-related felony. This argument runs contrary to clear precedents in our circuit.
We have held repeatedly that despite Apprendi, the "fact" of a prior conviction may be found by a sentencing judge rather than a jury.
The Constitution does not prohibit the government from peremptorily striking jurors based on their views about the legalization of marijuana. Moreover, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)'s record-keeping provision is not subject to any mens rea term. For these reasons, and for all others discussed above, we AFFIRM Prince's conviction and sentence.
