United States v. Haywood Norman, 677 F. App'x 613

Norman was convicted of three counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, one count of possessing a firearm in relation to drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
At arrest, police found 575.2 g of cocaine powder, 1,125 g of marijuana, 169.5 g of cocaine base (admitted by Norman), seven firearms (six loaded, two stolen), ammunition, digital scales, and cell phones in his residence.
Because of a prior drug conviction, Norman faced a mandatory minimum 120-month sentence for the drug-and-felon-in-possession offenses and a consecutive mandatory 60-month sentence for the 924(c) count under the statutes and the Guidelines framework.
Norman argued the Sixth Amendment required that the prior conviction enhancing his sentence be charged in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
The government did not move for a downward departure for substantial assistance, and Norman was ineligible for safety-valve relief, so the district court imposed the statutory mandatory minimums (total 180 months).
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Almendarez–Torres controls that prior convictions used to increase a sentence need not be charged to a jury, and that the imposed mandatory minimum sentence was reasonable and lawful.

Issue	Norman's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether a prior conviction used to increase statutory maximum must be charged in the indictment and proved to a jury under the Sixth Amendment	Prior conviction must be charged and jury-found beyond a reasonable doubt (Sixth Amendment)	Almendarez–Torres permits using prior convictions at sentencing without indictment/jury finding; circuit bound by that precedent	Rejected Norman’s claim; Almendarez–Torres governs and Eleventh Circuit follows it (challenge foreclosed)
Whether the 180-month sentence (statutory mandatory minimums) is substantively unreasonable	Mandatory minimums produced an unreasonable sentence given circumstances	Sentence was required by statute and Guidelines; district court properly considered §3553(a) factors and lacked authority to go below the mandatory minimum absent government motion or safety-valve eligibility	Affirmed as reasonable and lawful; district court complied with sentencing law and discretion

Almendarez–Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (holds prior convictions used only for sentencing need not be charged in indictment or proved to a jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (discussed but did not overrule Almendarez–Torres)
United States v. Harris, 741 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir.) (explains Eleventh Circuit is bound to Almendarez–Torres)
United States v. Castaing-Sosa, 530 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir.) (district court cannot go below statutory mandatory minimum absent government motion under §3553(e) or safety valve eligibility)
United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir.) (sentence below statutory maximum can still be reasonable)