[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILEDU.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 27, 2006

N o . 05-10804

THOMAS K. KAHN

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar

CLERK

D . C. Docket No. 04-00028-CR-FTM-29DNF

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERRENCE DUBOSE,

Defendant-Appellant.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Middle District of Florida

(J u n e 27, 2006)

B efo re ANDERSON, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

A p p e lla n t Terrence DuBose appeals the 240-month sentence imposed

f o llo w in g his guilty plea to conspiracy with intent to distribute 50 grams or more o f cocaine base, 21U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), 846.

O n appeal, Dubose argues that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

2 2 4 , 118 S. Ct. 1219, 140 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1998), was incorrectly decided and that h is prior convictions, which the district court used to apply a career offender en h an cem en t, should have been alleged in the indictment and proven beyond a r ea so n a b le doubt to a jury.

D u b o se's position is precluded by our many decisions attesting to the c o n tin u e d validity of Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1 2 6 7 , 1273 (11th Cir. 2006) ("As we have said several times, unless and until the S u p rem e Court specifically overrules Almendarez-Torres, we will continue to fo llo w it."). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in using D u b o se's prior convictions, which were not charged in his indictment, to apply a career offender enhancement to his offense level.

D u b o se further argues on appeal that the district court erred by failing to a tta ch anything to the PSI as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 3 2 ( i) ( 3 ) ( C ) .

We review de novo legal questions concerning the Federal Rules of Criminal P ro ced u re. United States v. Noel, 231 F.3d 833, 836 (11th Cir. 2000). F e d e ra l Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3) provides that a sentencing court "m u s t - for any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted m atter - rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is unnecessary . . . and must ap p en d a copy of the court's determinations under this rule to any copy of the p resen ten ce report made available to the Bureau of Prisons." Fed. R. Crim. P.

3 2 ( i) (3 ) ( B ) , (C).

T h e record here demonstrates that the district court did not attach a written statem en t of its determinations to the presentence report. "The failure of the d istrict court to append a written record of its findings is a ministerial matter, h o w e v e r, which can be remedied on remand without resentencing." United States v. Kramer, 943 F.2d 1543, 1553 (11th Cir. 1990).

F o r the above-stated reasons, we affirm Dubose's sentence, but remand the case to the district court for the limited purpose of attaching a copy of the sen ten cin g hearing transcript to the presentence report.

A F F IR M E D AND REMANDED.