However, the Eleventh Circuit's later decision in Perez v. United States, supra, while not overruling Rutherford, held that harmless errors in the section 851 notice do not invalidate the notice. Yet in cases like United States v. Olson, 716 F.2d 850, 852-53 (11th Cir. 1983), and United States v. Bowden, ___ Fed.Appx. ___, No. 08-11935, 2009 WL 32755 (11th Cir. Jan.7, 2009) (unpublished), the Eleventh Circuit had gone further than it had in Rutherford and held that a failure to comply with section 851 deprives the sentencing judge of jurisdiction to enhance the defendant's sentence on the basis of a prior conviction. The Solicitor General has filed a petition for certiorari in Bowden (No. 09-244, Aug. 27, 2009), noting that the Eleventh Circuit is in conflict with all eight other circuits to have considered the issue.

On these facts, we conclude the notice was sufficient to meet the purposes of § 851 when considered in conjunction with the indictment. Anthony's reliance on United States v. Bowden, ___ Fed.Appx. ___, 2009 WL 32755 (11th Cir. 2009), is misplaced. We are not bound by unpublished opinions.

He contends, however, that "strict compliance" with the requirements of that section also obligated the government to identify the particular enhanced sentence it sought ( i.e., mandatory life imprisonment) and the statutory provision that permitted imposition of such a sentence. The primary case cited by Green for this proposition is United States v. Bowden, 2009 WL 32755 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2009), in which the appellate court vacated the trial court's sentence enhancement. However, in that case, the government had failed to clearly indicate the previous convictions to be relied upon, because it listed the wrong date for one of his convictions.

(Criminal Case Doc. No. 10.) Petitioner's reliance on United States v. Bowden, No. 08-11935, 2009 WL 32755 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2009), is misplaced because the facts in Bowden are distinguishable from the facts here. (Doc. No. 2 at 20.) In Bowden, the pretrial enhancement information listed the wrong conviction date and the wrong enhancement statute.

However, "[w]hen a notice of enhancement contains minor errors [the court] will find § 851 compliance as long as the notice, despite the errors, unambiguously signal the government's intent." United States v. Bowden, slip op., 2009 WL 32755, at *1 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2009) (citing Perez, 249 F.3d at 1266-1267). The government here complied with the procedures of § 851(a) by filing the Information with the court and by timely sending it to the defendant's attorney before his guilty plea.