United States v. Shaun Sanders, 406 F. App'x 995

Sanders pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base and was classified a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, increasing his offense level by 12 and his advisory range to 151–188 months; he received a 169-month sentence.
The career-offender determination rested on three Tennessee felony drug offenses from 2000 (possession with intent to sell cocaine and two felonies for possession of cocaine).
At sentencing, the district court accepted the PSR’s findings; a rearraignment misstatement suggested a 30-year maximum, which the PSR and sentence were later corrected to reflect a 20-year maximum.
Sanders appeals arguing Apprendi and Booker prohibit using prior convictions to enhance the guideline range and asserting § 851 notice requirements were violated because the government did not file an information before his guilty plea.
The district court’s reliance on prior felonies for § 4B1.1 does not violate Apprendi or Booker because the enhancement affects only the advisory Guidelines range within the statutory maximum, and not the charged statutory maximum.
The Sixth Circuit affirms, holding that § 4B1.1 enhancement is permissible under Apprendi/Booker, § 851 information is not required for guideline enhancements, and the sentence within the twenty-year maximum remains valid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §4B1.1 enhancement violate Apprendi/Booker?	Sanders argues Apprendi/Booker require jury proof or admission for aggravating facts.	Government contends priors are excepted from Apprendi/Booker as uncontested elements.	No error; prior convictions may be used to increase within the advisory range without violating Apprendi/Booker.
Does §851 notice apply to guideline-based sentence enhancement?	Sanders contends government failed to file §851 information before plea.	Government argues §851 applies to statutory, not guideline, enhancements.	No violation; §851 information is not required for §4B1.1 enhancement.
Did the enhancement actually increase the statutory maximum sentence?			No; the offense maximum remained within the twenty-year cap, so Apprendi does not apply to the §4B1.1 enhancement.

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court 2000) (prior-conviction exception; facts other than priors must be proved or admitted for greater penalties)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court 2005) (Guidelines are advisory; judge may consider facts within range without violating Apprendi)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court 1998) (prior convictions may be used to increase maximum sentence when uncontested)
United States v. Mans, 999 F.2d 966 (6th Cir. 1993) (851 notice requirements do not apply to §4B1.1 enhancements)
United States v. Wright, 43 F. App’x 848 (6th Cir. 2002) (failure to file §851 information before plea not fatal to guideline enhancement)