FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 9 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN THCIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ N o. 05- 1289 8 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 04-14025 -CR- DMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JESS IE DE BOU GHME RCE R, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ (M ay 9 , 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN Aand H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Je ssi e D eb oughMe rc er

appe al s hi s 21 2- m onth se nte nc e, im pose d purs uant to his g uiltyplea, for conspiracy to poss ess with intent to di stribute five or m ore kilog ram s of cocaine, in viol ation of 21 U.S .C. § 841(a)(1), 846. Mer cer ch al le ng es hi s d es ig na ti on as acare er o ffen de r, un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1. No r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e ns h o wn ; w e a f

f i rm. The pre sentence investigatio n report (PS I) listed Mer cer as a career offender be ca use the ins tant o ff

en se w as af

el ony dr ug- tr af fi ck ing of fe nse and b ec au se Mer cer h adat l eas t t wo ea rli er s ta te fel on y co nv ic ti on s fo r cri m es of v io le nc e. Me rc er ’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry sho w ed that, on 2 5 June 199 0, whe n M er ce r w as 16 y ears old , he w as arr es te d f or a ggr av at ed

a ssa ult w ithade ad ly

w ea pon. O n 19 July 1990 , Me rcer

wa s arre sted for burglary . On 4 D ecem ber 1990, Merc er rece ived three y ears’ probation for these offenses. On 7 D ecem ber 1992, when Merce r w as 17 y ears old, he wa s sentenced to 7 y ears’ im prisonm ent for an ar

m ed ro bbe ry c onvi ct ion . O n 14 S ep te m be r 1993 , Me rc er ’ s pr obatio n f or the ag gr av at ed

a ssa ult and b ur glary

c onvi ct ion s w as r ev oke d and h e re ce ive d se ve ny ear prison sent ences, to run concurrently with the sentence f

or his arm ed robbery co nvi ct ion . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a gr ee d w iththe P SI ’ s de sig natio n of Me rc er a s a care er of fe nde r ba se d onhis a ggr av at ed a ssa ult and arm ed

r obbe ry c onvi ct ion s.3

Merce r does not challenge the use of the arm ed robbery conviction as qua lif y ing tow ar d hi s c ar ee r of fe nde r de sig natio n. B ut h e co nte nds that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in co unt ing the a ggr av at ed a ssa ult c onvi ct ionbe ca

use he rece ived onl y

a sentence of probation . He contends th at, althoug h he later w as sentenced to seven y ears’ im prisonm ent for violating p robation, this sentence was concurrent to another sentence he alre ady wa s required to serve. Mer cer argues that he , thu s, ne ve r w as c onf ine d f or his pr obatio n r ev oc at ion : he did not spe nd the y ear a nda m on th in pri so n n eces sa ry to co un t t he ag gr av at edass au ltco nv ic ti on . H e al so c ont en ds that hi s se ve n- y ear se nte nc e shou ld n ot c ount be ca use it w as the result of a conviction for a probation vi olation , not for a violent crim e. W e re vie wde nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to c la ssi fy ade fe ndant a s a care er of fe nde r unde r U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1. Unit ed S tate s v. G ibs on, 434 F . 3d 1 234, 1243 (11 Cir. 2006 ). W e re view f or clear err or a district court’ s fact th de te rm in at io n t ha t p rio r co nv ic ti on s ar e u nr el at edforcri m in al hi st ory pu rp os es . United States v. He rnandez-Mar tinez, 382 F. 3d 13 04, 1306 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). U nde r the S en te nc ing Guid el ine s, ade fe ndant i s ac ar ee r of fe nde r if , am ong other thing s, “ the defendant has at least two prior f elony conviction s of either a cri m e o f vi ol en ce o r a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se .” U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(a ). To qua lif y a s th e tw o pr ior

f el ony c onvi ct ion s, the se nte nc es f or the se c onvi ct ion s4

m ust be c ount ed

se parate ly

und er § 4A 1. 1( a) , ( b) , or

( c) . U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 2( c) . F or a sentence to count und er § 4A 1.1(a) --when the offense w as com m itted before a defendant’ s eighteenth b irthday --the ter m of im prisonm ent m

ust exceed one y ear an d on e m onth and m

ust r es ult f ro m an a dul t c onvi ct ion . S ee U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 1, co m m en t. ( n. 1) ; U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2( d) & co m m en t. ( n. 7) . And whe n th e pr ior co nvi ct ioninv olv es ar ev oc at ionof pr obatio n, the Guid el ine s r equir e co urts t o a dd the or igi na l t er

m of im pr iso nm en t t o th e te rm

of im pr iso nm en t i m

pose d up on revocation. S ee U .S .S .G . § 4A 1.1, com m ent. ( n.1); U .S .S .G . § 4A 1.2(k)(1) & com m ent. ( n.11). H er e, Me rc er

ini tia lly r ec ei ve d on ly

pr obatio n f

or the a ggr av at ed

a ssa ult co nvi ct ion . B ut h e late r re ce ive d se ve n y ears ’ im pr iso nm ent a ft er

his pr obatio n wa s revoked. S o, Mer cer’ s sentence for the a ggravated assault convi ction was se ve n y ears ’ im

pr iso nm en t, whic h is gr eate r than th e one y ear an d on e m onth se nt en ce n eces sa ry

to co un t as a pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on un de r § 4 A1.1 (a). Further, even thoug h Merce r’ s seven-y ear aggravated assault sentence ran concurrent w ith his seven-y ear arm ed robbery sentence, these sentences are unr el at ed and, thu s, are c ount ed

se parate ly . S ee U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2( a) (2 ) (p ri or sentences in unrelated cases ar e to be counted separately ). T hese offenses w ere se parate d by

the int er ve nin g burg lary

arr es t. S ee U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2, c om m en t.5

(n.3). Further, the offenses occurr ed on different dates and w ere not part of a com m on schem e. See id. And the sentences were not conso lidated: they we re im pose d ondif

fe re nt d ay s, ha d di ff

er en t do ck et

num be rs , and i nvol ve d di ff

er ent cr im es . S ee Unit ed

S tate s v. V et et o, 920 F . 2d 8 23, 826 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) (defendant’ s sentences not cons olidated for care er off ender purposes when im pose d ondif

fe re nt d ay s, by

dif fe re nt j udge s, and f

or dif fe re nt c ri m es a ga ins t dif fe re nt v ic tim s) . T he a ggr av at ed a ssa ult and arm ed

r obbe ry se nte nc es , a lth ough co nc ur re nt, c ount

a s tw o di ff

er en t se ve n- y ear se nte nc es . S ee Unit ed S tate s v. Smith , 385 F . 3d 1 342, 134 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( that de fe ndant r ec ei ve d c onc ur re nt sentences for state c onvi ctions do es not render those convictio ns related under § 4A 1. 2) , va cate d, 125 S . Ct . 140 1 ( 2005 ), opi nio n r ei nst at ed , 416 F . 3d 1 350 (1 1th Ci r. ), c er t. de nie d, 126 S . Ct . 784 ( 2005 ). T he se se nte nc es are not r el at ed f or pur pose s of c al cu latin g M er ce r’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry status . Insum , Me rc er

r ec ei ve d alon g e noug h se nte nc e fo r the a ggr av at ed a ssa ult co nv ic ti on forth atco nv ic ti on to qu al ify un de r th e car eer o ffen de r pr ov is io ns . And Merc er’ s aggravated assault sentence wa s separate f rom his arm ed robbery se nte nc e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y c ount ed Me rc er ’ s a ggr av at ed

a ssa ult co nvi ct iona s apr ior

f el ony c onvi ct ionf

or c ar ee r of fe nde r pur

pose s. AFFIR MED.