J. We have for review Noble v. State, 765 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 8(b)(3), Fla. Const. Noble challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (the “Act”) on several grounds, most of which have been addressed previously by this Court. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to the Act and holding that the Act violates neither the single subject rule for legislation nor principles of equal protection); McKnight v. State, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>); State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000)
holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence holding that a defendant has the right both to present evidence to prove that the defendant does not qualify for sentencing under the act and to challenge the states evidence regarding the defendants eligibility for sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender holding that defendant has due process right to introduce evidence on minimum parole eligibility in sentencing phase recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard holding that prison releasee reoffender sentence does not apply to burglary of unoccupied dwelling