*Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have no precedential value

and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule,

the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-30506

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REGINALD LASTRAPES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(94-CR-20057)

December 1, 1995

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reginald Lastrapes appeals the sentence imposed for distribution of crack cocaine.

Concluding that the district court failed to give adequate consideration to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3

in imposing Lastrapes’ sentence, we VACATE and REMAND for resentencing.

BACKGROUND

Lastrapes pled guilty to the intentional distribution of cocaine base, or “crack,” in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The district court found him to be a career
 

1To qualify as a career offender a defendant must be at least 18 years of age at the time

of the federal offense, which must be either a crime of violence or a drug offense, and the

defendant must have at least two unrelated prior felony convictions for such offenses.

U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.2(a)(2), 4B1.1; United States v. Garcia, 962 F.2d 479 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, U.S. , 113 S.Ct. 293, 131 L.Ed.2d 217 (1992).

 

2United States v. Ford, 996 F.2d 83 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 704 (1994).

 

3Lastrapes was arrested on April 20, 1990, for distributing cocaine on January 9, 1990,

and was arrested the second time on July 21, 1992, for distributing cocaine on March 6,

1992. He pled guilty to both offenses on October 19, 1992.

 

4Garcia.

 

5The state judge’s decision to impose both sentences on the same day appears to be more

a matter of docket management and convenience than a statement regarding the

“relationship” of the two convictions.

2

offender and sentenced him to a term of 188 months of imprisonment to be followed by 5

years supervised release. The court ordered that this federal sentence should be served

consecutive to undischarged state sentences for which Lastrapes currently is incarcerated.

Lastrapes timely appeals.

ANALYSIS

Lastrapes first challenges the district court’s ruling that his two prior felony

convictions were unrelated and thereforemay be treated separately in determining his career

offender status under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.1 We review that determination de novo.

2

Lastrapes’ prior convictions arose out of two separate arrests for two separate

incidents of cocaine distribution.3 Although Lastrapes received concurrent sentences for

these offenses which were imposed on the same day by the same state trial judge, we do not

presume these prior convictionsto be “related” merely because the resulting sentences run

concurrently.4 Nor are we persuaded by Lastrapes’ unsubstantiated supposition that the state

judge “felt that the charges were related.”5 In the absence of an evidentiary showing of a

“close factual relationship” or a formal legal connection between the two prior convictions,
 

6United States v. Bryant, 991 F.2d 171, 177 (5th Cir. 1993).

 

7United States v. Hernandez, 64 F.3d 179 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Torrez, 40

F.3d 84 (5th Cir. 1994).

3

we find no error in the district court’s ruling.6

Lastrapes also challenges the district court’s determination that his federal sentence

should be served consecutive to hisstate sentence. Lastrapes maintains that the district court

did not give proper consideration to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. That section specifically addresses

the circumstance of a federal defendant, like Lastrapes, who isserving an undischarged state

sentence at the time offederalsentencing. The record persuades us that the district court was

under the impression that it lacked the authority to impose the federal sentence concurrent

to Lastrapes’ undischarged state sentences. We therefore must conclude that this claim has

merit, which requiresthat we vacateLastrapes’sentence and remand forresentencing. Upon

remand the district courtshould determine the applicability vel non of subsections(a)-(c) of

section 5G1.3, making its findings and conclusions a part of the record.7

VACATED and REMANDED.