Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01112/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01112-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry R. Eames
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

,,. . . • . PILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Umted States Court of Appeals 

T enrh Circuit 

AUG 15 1990 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

LARRY R. EAMES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECK.ER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1112 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-328) 

(Dist. Colo. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON and COOK**, Circuit Judges. 

Defendant-appellant Larry Eames challenges his sentence. We 

affirm. 

In early 1988, Eames was indicted on charges of mail and wire 

fraud in the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Texas. He agreed in July of that year to a transfer 

of the case to the United States District Court for the District 

of Colorado for entry of a guilty plea and sentencing. He was 

sentenced to three years in prison. 

* 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. 

** Honorable H. 

Eastern, Northern 

Dale Cook, United States District Judge, 

and Western Districts of Oklahoma, sitting by 

Appellate Case: 89-1112 Document: 010110040894 Date Filed: 08/15/1990 Page: 1 
That November, another indictment was filed against him in 

Colorado, also charging wire and mail fraud. Pursuant to a plea 

agreement, he pled guilty to one count. He was sentenced to 

twenty months in prison, to run consecutively with the sentence 

being served under the Texas charges. 

Eames contends that the district court erred in imposing the 

sentence to run consecutively rather than concurrently. 1 When 

Eames was sentenced, the sentencing guidelines provided as 

follows: 

"If at the time of sentencing, the defendant is already 

serving one or more unexpired sentences, then the 

sentences for the instant offense(s) shall run 

consecutively to such unexpired sentences, unless one or 

more of the instant offense(s) arose out of the same 

transactions or occurrences as the unexpired sentences. 

In the latter case, such instant sentences and the 

unexpired sentences shall run concurrently, except to 

the extent otherwise required by law." 

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual,§ 5Gl.3 

(Oct. 1987). 2 

designation. 

1 He also argues that the court erred by considering losses 

attributable to dismissed charges and uncharged offenses when it 

calculated the sentence. This argument has since been foreclosed 

by our decision in United States v. Rutter, 897 F.2d 1558, 1561 

(10th Cir. 1990), that a sentencing court is not limited to 

considering only the conduct in the count(s) to which the 

defendant pleads guilty. Other facts also are relevant in 

determining the appropriate sentencing range. 

2 The guideline has since been narrowed to deal only with 

crimes committed while serving a term of imprisonment. United 

States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, App. C, amend. 

289 (Nov. 1989); see U.S.S.G. § 5Gl.3. The commentary to the new 

guideline states that if, at the time of sentencing, the defendant 

is already serving an unexpired sentence, but did not commit the 

offense for which he is being sentenced while serving that term of 

imprisonment, the district court has discretion to impose the 

sentence consecutively or concurrently. u.s.s.G. § 5Gl.3 comment. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-1112 Document: 010110040894 Date Filed: 08/15/1990 Page: 2 
Eames contends that the district court erred when it used the 

test of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932), to 

decide whether or not the Colorado charges "arose out of the same 

transactions or occurrences as the [Texas charges]." We need not 

address this exact argument, however, because we hold the Colorado 

charges did not arise from the same transactions or occurrences as 

the Texas charges. 

The Colorado charges dealt with a fraudulent scheme operated 

near Denver, Colorado between August and October 1988. R. Vol. I, 

Tab 1 at 1-6. The Texas charges dealt with similar conduct 

occurring near Dallas, Texas between July 1986 and February 1987. 

R. Vol. I, Tab 7 at 1-11. Some people were involved in both 

schemes; others were involved only in one or the other. Whatever 

its exact boundaries, the phrase "offense(s) ar[ising] out of the 

same transactions or occurrences" certainly does not encompass 

different schemes with different victims committed in different 

cities in different years with different people, even if the 

schemes use the same modus operandi. 

Eames also argues that the part of § SGl.3 which requires 

consecutive sentencing for unrelated crimes exceeded the 

Sentencing Commission's authority. This argument was not 

presented to the district court. We decline to consider it. 

Turney v. O'Toole, 898 F.2d 1470, 1474 n.4 (10th Cir. 1990). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-1112 Document: 010110040894 Date Filed: 08/15/1990 Page: 3