On January 14th the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument on  whether  Harris v. United States, which held  that the Constitution does not require facts which increase a mandatory minimum sentence to be determined by a jury, should be overruled. Some commentators suggest this case is potentially the most significant criminal law case of this term.

Alleyne v. United States (docket 11-9335), was an otherwise unremarable case involving a robbery of a convenience .    Alleyne got eighty-four months added to his basic sentence for the robbery, on the theory that he would have known that his accomplice in the robbery would wield a gun as they carried out the robbery.  The added sentence was based upon the finding by the judge, not the jury, that Alleyne would have known about the plan to “brandish” a gun — a factor that leads to a mandatory minimum sentence beyond a basic sentence for the crime itself.

The Fourth Circuit decision which is the subject of the appeal is remarably brief:

“Alleyne’s final appellate argument is that the district court erred by holding him responsible at sentencing for brandishing a firearm. The court’s finding elevated Alleyne’s mandatory minimum sentence for the firearm conviction from five years to seven years pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 924(c). We review a district court’s factual findings at sentencing for clear error.” United States v. Pauley, 289 F.3d 254, 258 (4th Cir. 2002).

We first note, as Alleyne has conceded, that Supreme Court precedent forecloses any argument that Alleyne’s constitutional rights were violated by the district court’s finding that he was accountable for brandishing the firearm despite the jury’s finding that he was not guilty of that offense. Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 556, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002). We do not find the district court’s finding otherwise clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. “