Case: 15-10400   Date Filed: 07/09/2015   Page: 1 of 3


                                                     [DO NOT PUBLISH]



            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                      ________________________

                            No. 15-10400
                        Non-Argument Calendar
                      ________________________

                  D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80142-KLR-1



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                              Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                  versus

MICHAEL ORLANDO CHAMPAGNIE,

                                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                      ________________________

               Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Southern District of Florida
                     ________________________

                              (July 9, 2015)

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
              Case: 15-10400      Date Filed: 07/09/2015   Page: 2 of 3


      Michael Orlando Champagnie appeals his 24-month sentence, imposed

below the applicable guideline range, after pleading guilty to one count of illegal

entry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On appeal,

Champagnie argues that the district court lacked the authority to apply a 12-level

increase to his base offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B), based

upon a prior conviction that was neither charged in the indictment nor proven to a

jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

      “We review constitutional sentencing issues de novo.” United States v.

Steed, 

, 978 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We also “review questions

of law with respect to the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines

de novo.” United States v. Garza-Mendez, 

, 1287 (11th Cir. 2013)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

      The Supreme Court held, in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 

, 

(1998), that the government need not prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that a defendant had prior convictions nor allege those prior

convictions in its indictment in order to use those convictions to enhance a

defendant’s statutory maximum sentence. 

118 S. Ct. at 1222. We

have recognized that we are “bound to follow Almendarez-Torres unless and until

the Supreme Court itself overrules that decision.” United States v. Thomas, 

, 1035 (11th Cir. 2001).


                                          2
                Case: 15-10400    Date Filed: 07/09/2015   Page: 3 of 3


         We have affirmed a guideline range enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A),

which differs from § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B), only in the number of levels of the

enhancement, against a similar challenge to the use of a prior conviction not

charged in the indictment and proved to a jury, noting that United States v. Booker,

, 

(2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 

, 

, 159 (2004), left Almendarez-Torres undisturbed. United States v.

Orduno-Mireles, 

, 962 (11th Cir. 2005).

         As Champagnie concedes, binding precedent forecloses his argument that

the district court erred by enhancing his advisory guideline range based on a prior

conviction not charged in the indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable

doubt.

         Accordingly, upon review of the record and careful consideration of the

parties’ briefs, we affirm.

         AFFIRMED.




                                           3