Background

• Payne pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery and one count of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence; he received 30 months and an 84-month mandatory minimum, consecutive.
• The PSR asserted an 84-month minimum applying § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) because a firearm was brandished during the robbery.
• Payne objected, arguing the mandatory minimum could not be imposed without his admission or a jury finding that the firearm was brandished.
• At sentencing, the district court held a fact-finding hearing and a teller testified that a pistol was pointed at her during the robbery.
• The district court found brandishing and imposed the 84-month minimum, despite Payne not admitting brandishing at the plea.
• The sentence was appealed on the theory that Alleyne v. United States forbids judicial fact-finding to raise mandatory minimums; the court ultimately affirmed.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• United States v. King, 751 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2014) (harmless-error review for Alleyne/Aprendi-type errors)
• United States v. McKinley, 732 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2013) (Alleyne extends Apprendi to mandatory-minimum fact findings)
• United States v. Candelario, 240 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001) (uncontroverted evidence suffices for harmless error)
• United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825 (11th Cir. 2000) (harmless error framework for Apprendi/Alleyne-type issues)
• Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (active-participant theory supports liability under § 924(c))
• United States v. Williams, 334 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2003) (participation suffices for § 924(c) liability)