convictions. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a court does not violate the Sixth Amendment when it elevates a sentence based on the fact of prior convictions. See, e.g., Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348; Booker, 543 U.S. at 244, 125 S.Ct. 738. This rule has been applied with equal force in the federal courts since the Booker decision. See, e.g., United States v. Work, 409 F.3d 484, 491 n. 1 (1st Cir.2005) (stating that the rationale of Ap-prendi and Blakely “simply does not affect sentence-enhancement provisions premised upon a defendant’s prior criminal eonvic- tions”); United States v. Barrero, 425 F.3d 154, 157 (2d Cir.2005) (stating that a court does not violate the Sixth Amendment by basing a sentence on its finding of a prior conv (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 24] Given the court’s articulation of its
holding that a sentencing court may determine the nature of a prior conviction without violating the sixth amendment holding that the defendants argument that the sixth amendment requires that a jury not a judge must determine whether his prior conviction is within the category of offenses specified in  2l12b1avii was without merit holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over sixth amendment claims because the sixth amendment is not moneymandating holding that the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes need not be proved to a jury or admitted by defendant to satisfy the sixth amendment