Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02026/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02026-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Restaino
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MICHAEL RESTAINO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

APPEALS 

FI!.1ED 

United St..'lt.ei; Courl of Appeal, 

T~nth Cirl!:rit 

JAN 2 71993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-2026 

(D.C. No. CR-91-430-SC) 

(D.N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has detennined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the detennination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Michael Restaino pleaded guilty to wire fraud in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1343 and was sentenced to thirty-three months 

imprisonment plus three years supervised release. On appeal, Mr. 

Restaino challenges the criminal history category underlying that 

sentence. We exercise jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 

affinn. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-2026 Document: 010110159308 Date Filed: 01/27/1993 Page: 1 
Mr. Restaino's presentence report identified eight criminal 

history points, resulting in a criminal history category of IV. 

This calculation rests in part on the interplay of two unrelated 

crimes . On June 8, 1984, Restaino was convicted of grand theft 

and sentenced to three years probation. On October 5, 1984, 

Restaino was arrested for uttering a forged instrument and, at his 

March 19, 1987, sentencing hearing, the court (1 ) sentenced him to 

twenty-four months imprisonment for that crime and (2) revoked his 

probation for the grand theft charge and sentenced him to twentyfour months imprisonment to run concurrently with his forged 

instrument sentence. The district court assigned each of these 

past crimes a separate point value of three. 

The interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is a question 

of law which we review de novo. United States v. Rutter, 897 F.2d 

1558, 1560 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 112 (1990). The 

guidelines provide specific instructions for calculating a 

defendant's criminal history. Relevant to this case, § 

4Al.2(a) (2) states: 

Prior sentences imposed in unrelated cases are to be 

counted separately. Prior sentences imposed in related 

cases are to be treated as one sentence for purposes of 

§ 4Al.l(a), (b), and (c). Use the longest sentence of 

imprisonment if concurrent sentences were imposed and 

the aggregate sentence of imprisonment imposed in the 

case of consecutive sentences. 

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 

4Al.2(a) (2) (Nov. 1992). At the time of Restaino's wire fraud 

offense, the guidelines defined related cases as follows: 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-2026 Document: 010110159308 Date Filed: 01/27/1993 Page: 2 
Cases are considered related if they (1) occurred on a 

single occasion, (2) were part of a single common scheme 

or plan, or (3) were consolidated for trial or 

sentencing. 

See U. S . S.G. § 4Al.2, comment. (n . 3) (Nov. 1990) . 1 

Restaino argues that, because his forged instrument and grand 

theft prison sentences were imposed at a consolidated hearing, 

they must be considered as one sentence for purposes of his 

cri minal history. It is well-established, however, that the 

revocation of probation and imposition of sentence at a subsequent 

sentencing hearing for a different offense "does not change the 

underlying sentences' separate and independent nature." United 

States v. Jones, 898 F.2d 1461, 1464 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

111 S. Ct. 111 (1990); see also United States v. Villarreal, 960 

F.2d 117, 120-21 (10th Cir.) (sentences for separate crimes 

entered at same hearing not "related" for purposes of§ 

4Al. 2 (a) (2)) , cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 166 (1992) . The district 

court therefore properly assigned each offense a separate point 

value. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

1 This definition was amended effective November 1991, to 

include the pre fatory language: "Prior sentences are not 

considered related if they were for offenses that were separated 

by an inte rvening arrest (i.e., the defendant is arrested for the 

first o ffens e prior to committing the second offense)." U.S.S.G. 

§ 4Al.2, comment. (n.3) (Nov. 1991). 

-3 -

Appellate Case: 92-2026 Document: 010110159308 Date Filed: 01/27/1993 Page: 3