Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02263/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02263-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mariano Herbert Herrera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

United Stares C.ourt of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tf!nth <:i!'cuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MARIANO HERBERT HERRERA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT P.UG 13 1991 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2263 

(O.C. No. CR-90-205-JB) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and MATSCH, District 

Judge.** 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

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

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

submitted without oral argument. 

Mariano Herbert Herrera entered a guilty plea to one count of 

armed bank robbery and was sentenced under the career offender 

provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. He contends on appeal 

that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender 

*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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** The Honorable Richard P. Matsch, United States District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-2263 Document: 010110131497 Date Filed: 08/13/1991 Page: 1 
because he does not have the two prior felony convictions required 

by the relevant Guideline. See Guidelines§ 4B1.1(3) (1990). We 

affirm. 

The only dispute in this appeal is whether Herrera has two 

prior convictions under section 4B1.1(3), which requires a 

defendant to have "at least two prior felony convictions of either 

a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense." Herrera 

has a 1973 state conviction for residential burglary. He also has 

a 1984 state court conviction for residential burglary and a 1984 

federal court conviction for passing an altered money order. 

Herrera concedes that the 1973 conviction is countable under 

1 section 4B1.1(3), but he ·contends that the 1984 residential 

burglary conviction is not countable because the sentence for that 

offense ran concurrently with the sentence on the federal offense. 

We are at a loss to perceive how the fact that the sentences 

on the 1984 convictions were concurrent has any bearing on the 

requirements of section 4B1.1(3). Section 4B1.2(3)(B) provides 

that prior felony convictions qualify in determining career 

offender status if the sentences on those crimes are counted 

separately. Section 4Al.2(a)(2) states that sentences are counted 

separately if they are unrelated. Application note 3 to the 

section states that cases are related if they occurred on a single 

occasion, were part of a common scheme or plan, or were 

1 Section 4B1.2(l)(ii) provides that a crime of violence 

includes the burglary of a dwelling when punishable by an 

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2263 Document: 010110131497 Date Filed: 08/13/1991 Page: 2 
• 

consolidated for trial or sentencing. See United States v. 

Kinney, 915 F.2d 1471, 1472 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. 

Flores, 875 F.2d 1110, 1113 (5th Cir. 1989). The 1973 and 1984 

residential burglary convictions clearly are not related, and the 

sentences on those crimes are thus to be counted separately. 

Accordingly, both convictions are countable for purposes of 

determining career offender status. The fact that the sentence on 

one of those offenses was to run concurrently to the sentence on a 

third offense2 is simply irrelevant because Herrera was convicted 

of two offenses that satisfy the Guidelines. See id. at 1114; see 

also United States v. Smith, 905 F.2d 1296, 1303 (9th Cir. 1990). 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

2 The mere fact that the sentences on the two 1984 convictions 

were to run concurrently does not mean that those crimes were 

related within the meaning of the Guidelines. See United States 

v. Kinney. 915 F.2d 1471, 1472 (10th Cir. 1990). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2263 Document: 010110131497 Date Filed: 08/13/1991 Page: 3