[DO NOT PUBLISH]


             IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT                     FILED
                        ________________________         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                                           ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                             September 15, 2005
                              No. 05-10053                  THOMAS K. KAHN
                          Non-Argument Calendar                 CLERK
                        ________________________

                  D. C. Docket No. 03-00223-CR-J-12TEM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


                                                                Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                   versus

FREDERICK LAWRENCE SNYDER, JR.,
a.k.a. William Ball,

                                                          Defendant-Appellant.


                        ________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Florida
                      _________________________
                           (September 15, 2005)


Before HULL, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

     Defendant-appellant Frederick Lawrence Snyder pleaded guilty to
manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The

government gave notice that Snyder was subject to an enhanced ten-year

mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851 based on his prior conviction

for possession of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1), 851. Snyder challenged the

enhanced mandatory minimum, alleging that § 851 violated the Sixth Amendment

in light of Blakely v. Washington, 

, 

, 

(2004).

      At sentencing, the court determined that Blakely did not require the

government to plead prior convictions in the indictment or prove them to a jury,

and sentenced Snyder to 120 months imprisonment.

      On appeal, Snyder challenges the use of his prior conviction to enhance his

sentence, and he questions the continued validity of Almendarez-Torres. He

concedes, however, that this court has rejected his argument.

      In United States v. Booker, 542 U.S. –, 

, 

(2005),1 the Supreme Court held that Blakely applied to the federal sentencing

guidelines and that in a mandatory guidelines regime, the Sixth Amendment

required that any fact that increased a defendant’s sentence beyond the maximum

sentence authorized by the facts established by a plea or a jury verdict must be



      1
          This court now reviews Blakley arguments under Booker.

                                              2
admitted by the defendant or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 

.

      Because Snyder preserved his Booker challenge in the district court, we

review the sentences de novo. United States v. Paz, 

, 948 (11th Cir.

2005). The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we also review de

novo. United States v. Jackson, 

, 101 (11th Cir. 1997).

      We conclude that there is no merit to Snyder’s argument. An enhancement

based on a prior conviction, even if not admitted by the defendant or proved to a

jury, does not represent a constitutional Booker error. United States v. Orduno-

Mireles, 

, 962-63 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Camacho-

Ibarquen, 

, 1290 (11th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court’s decision in

Shepard v. United States, 

(2005), does not alter this conclusion.

United States v. Gallegos-Aguero, 

, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2005);

n.3. Moreover, Booker had no effect on the

validity of mandatory minimum sentences. United States v. Shelton, 

, 1333 n.10 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the sentence

imposed.




                                          3