Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01220/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01220-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Adams
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1220

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Jerry Adams, *

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 17, 2007

Filed: December 18, 2007

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Jerry Adams pleaded guilty to 11 counts of interference with commerce by

robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). At sentencing, the district court1

determined that Adams qualified as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1

and sentenced Adams to 188 months' imprisonment. Adams appeals the court's

imposition of the career-offender enhancement. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 07-1220 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/18/2007 Entry ID: 3383342
2Adams pleaded guilty to nine counts brought by an information filed in the

Western District of Missouri, and two counts brought by an information filed in the

District of Kansas. Adams had previously consented to the transfer of the Kansas

information to the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

I. Background

Between January 22, 2005 and April 10, 2005, Adams robbed several fast food

restaurants and convenience stores in the Kansas City metropolitan area. A

combination of witness statements, line-up identifications, and business surveillance

videos linked Adams to the robberies, and he eventually confessed to the crimes. On

July 5, 2006, Adams pleaded guilty to 11 counts of robbery,2

 in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1951(a).

The presentence investigation report (PSR) reflected that Adams had five prior

convictions for robbery, and provided the following information about those

convictions:

1) Jackson County, Missouri, Case No. CR87-4829

On September 15, 1987, Adams robbed a Burger King in

Grandview, Missouri, while armed with a deadly weapon. Adams

was sentenced on June 9, 1988, to 15 years custody.

2) Jackson County, Missouri, Case No. CR88-0151

On December 20, 1987, Adams entered a Hardee's restaurant in

Independence, Missouri, threatened the use of a dangerous

weapon, and forcibly stole money. Adams was sentenced on June

9, 1988, to 15 years custody to run concurrent with case CR87-

4829.

3) Jackson County, Missouri, Case No. 88-0944

On January 10, 1988, Adams robbed a Burger King in Kansas

City, Missouri, while armed with a deadly weapon. Adams was

Appellate Case: 07-1220 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/18/2007 Entry ID: 3383342
-3-

sentenced on June 9, 1988, to 15 years of custody concurrent with

the above Jackson County cases.

4) Johnson County, Kansas, Case No. K0056385

On February 7, 1988, Adams robbed an individual by force while

armed with a BB gun. Adams was sentenced on August 2, 1989,

to 5–20 years in custody to run consecutive to the three above

mentioned Jackson County, Missouri, cases.

5) Lyon County, Kansas, Case No. 88CR185

On January 5, 1988, Adams robbed a woman, by force, while

armed with a deadly weapon. Adams was sentenced on July 30,

1992, to 10–30 years in custody to run concurrent to the Johnson

County, Kansas, conviction, but consecutive to the three Jackson

County, Missouri, cases.

The PSR concluded that Adams's five previous robbery convictions classified

him as a career offender, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. With the application of the

career offender enhancement, Adams had a Category VI criminal history and a total

offense level of 29, making his Guidelines range 151–188 months' imprisonment. 

Adams objected to the application of the career offender enhancement. In

support, he argued that his five prior robbery convictions were related cases as they

were not separated by an intervening arrest, the crimes were a part of a common

scheme or plan, and the offenses all occurred within about a four-month time frame.

Thus, Adams asserted that his prior robbery convictions should not be counted as

separate crimes of violence for purposes of § 4B1.1. At Adams's sentencing, the

district court overruled Adams's objections and applied the career offender

enhancement, sentencing Adams to 188 months' imprisonment on each of the 11

robbery counts, to be served concurrently.

Appellate Case: 07-1220 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/18/2007 Entry ID: 3383342
3

It is undisputed that Adams's prior robbery convictions and his current robbery

convictions are felony crimes of violence for purposes of the career offender

enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1. ("'Crime of violence' includes . . .

robbery . . . .").

-4-

II. Discussion

We review the district court's interpretation and application of the Sentencing

Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Lynch, 477

F.3d 993, 996 (8th Cir. 2007). In overruling Adams's objection to his career offender

status, the district court determined that the prior robberies were not related. The court

noted that Adams's prior crimes did not occur on the same occasion nor were they

consolidated for trial or sentencing. The court specifically stated that the prior felonies

"were five separate offenses occurring on five separate dates with five separate

victims. They all retained their individual case number." The district court also found

that the five prior robberies were not part of a common scheme or plan. We review

these determinations of the district court as findings of fact and reverse only if clearly

erroneous. United States v. McCracken, 487 F.3d 1125, 1127 (8th Cir. 2007).

Under § 4B1.1 of the Guidelines, persons who are convicted of a crime of

violence or a controlled substance offense, who have at least two prior felony

convictions for either crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses, are to be

sentenced as "career offenders."3

 U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Section 4B1.2(c) of the Guidelines

states:

The term 'two prior felony convictions' means (1) the defendant

committed the instant offense of conviction subsequent to sustaining at

least two felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled

substance offense (i.e., two felony convictions of a crime of violence,

two felony convictions of a controlled substance offense, or one felony

conviction of a crime of violence and one felony conviction of a

controlled substance offense), and (2) the sentences for at least two of

Appellate Case: 07-1220 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/18/2007 Entry ID: 3383342
4

Effective November 1, 2007, Guidelines § 4A1.2(a)(2) and the commentary

to that section (app. n.3)—which are cited, quoted, and relied upon throughout this

opinion—were removed and replaced by amendment. The amendment, however, is

inapplicable to this case, as we must apply the Guidelines that were in effect on the

date of Adams's sentencing. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.11(a), (b)(1) ("The court shall use

the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced," but "[i]f

the court determines that use of the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the

defendant is sentenced would violate the ex post facto clause of the United States

Constitution, the court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the

offense of conviction was committed.") (emphasis in original); 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a)(4)(A); United States v. Valladares, 304 F.3d 1300, 1302 (8th Cir. 2002). As

Adams was sentenced on January 22, 2007, and the Guidelines applicable to him on

that date did not violate the ex post facto clause, those Guidelines apply, not the

Guidelines as amended effective November 1, 2007.

-5-

the aforementioned felony convictions are counted separately under the

provisions of § 4A1.1(a), (b), or (c).

Id. at § 4B1.2(c). 

"Prior sentences imposed in 'related cases' are to be treated as one sentence for

purposes of § 4A1.1(a), (b), and (c)," while prior sentences imposed in unrelated cases

are to be counted separately. Id. at § 4A1.2(a)(2) (2006).4

 The Guidelines commentary

elaborates that where offenses were not separated by an intervening arrest, they are

"considered related if they resulted from offenses that (A) occurred on the same

occasion, (B) were part of a single common scheme or plan, or (C) were consolidated

for trial or sentencing." Id. at § 4A1.2, cmt. n.3. 

Reviewing the record in this case, we find no error in the district court's

imposition of the career offender enhancement. First, examining Adams's previous

robbery convictions, we note that the five offenses occurred over a nearly five month

span, with no two of the offenses occurring closer than five days apart. Thus, all five

of the previous offenses occurred on different occasions. See Lynch, 477 F.3d at 997

Appellate Case: 07-1220 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/18/2007 Entry ID: 3383342
-6-

(finding that a defendant's prior violent crimes, committed one day apart, did not occur

on the same occasion).

Second, we agree with the district court that Adams's prior robberies were not

part of a common scheme or plan. "In assessing whether the offenses were part of a

single common scheme or plan, we consider (1) the time period, (2) the participants,

(3) the victims, (4) the motive, (5) the modus operandi, (6) the location, (7) the

offenses, (8) whether a common investigation uncovered the offenses and (9) whether

the defendant jointly planned the offenses." Id. at 996. Here, the five prior robberies

occurred over a period of four to five months, with each robbery involving different

victims, and each occurring at a different location. See United States v. Mills, 375 F.3d

689, 693 (8th Cir. 2004) (finding that a defendant's three prior burglaries, committed

over a six-month period and involving a similar modus operandi, were not related as

the crimes were committed in different locations, against different victims, and were

not all planned at the same time); Lynch, 477 F.3d at 997 ("a single common scheme

or plan involves something more than simply a repeated pattern of conduct"). Further,

the record does not show that Adams planned the five robberies all at once, rather it

appears that Adams simply committed the robberies as his need for money demanded.

See McCracken, 487 F.3d at 1127 ("A 'common scheme or plan' implies that the

crimes were jointly planned, or at least that the offender intended that the second

would be committed as a consequence of the first"); Mills, 375 F.3d at 693. 

Lastly, although Adams concedes that none of his prior robbery convictions

were formally consolidated for sentencing, he argues that his prior Missouri robbery

convictions were functionally consolidated for sentencing. Adams contends that

because he pleaded guilty to and was sentenced for those three robberies on the same

day, and the sentences for all three of those convictions were imposed concurrently

they were, as a practical matter, consolidated. Adams also asserts that his two prior

Kansas robbery convictions were functionally consolidated because the sentences

were set to run concurrently. 

Appellate Case: 07-1220 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/18/2007 Entry ID: 3383342
-7-

Contrary to Adams's argument, Eighth Circuit precedent requires formal

consolidation. Where, as here, there has been no formal order of consolidation filed,

and each case retains its individual case number, the prior felonies were not

consolidated for sentencing. See United States v. Paden, 330 F.3d 1066, 1068 (8th Cir.

2003) (finding prior felonies were not consolidated for sentencing even though the

pleas were entered on the same day and the sentences were imposed concurrently,

because the cases proceeded under separate docket numbers and were never formally

consolidated); United States v. Klein, 13 F.3d 1182, 1185 (8th Cir. 1994) ("[T]wo or

more sentences imposed at the same time are not related for purposes of § 4A1.2(a)(2)

if the cases proceeded to sentencing under separate docket numbers, and there was no

formal order of consolidation.") (internal quotations and citation omitted). 

Assuming, arguendo, that the three prior Missouri robberies were consolidated

for sentencing and that the two prior Kansas robberies were also consolidated, these

two groupings of convictions would still place Adams in the status of a career

offender. The resulting two separate, prior, unconsolidated robbery convictions would

still give Adams at least two unrelated prior felonies of violence triggering the career

offender enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

Having found that Adams's prior robbery convictions did not occur on the same

occasion, were not part of a common scheme or plan, and were not consolidated for

sentencing, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that

Adams's prior robbery convictions were unrelated. Therefore, because Adams had at

least two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence when he committed the

instant robberies, the career offender enhancement was properly applied.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1220 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/18/2007 Entry ID: 3383342