NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0165n.06 F iled: F ebruary 28, 2007 No. 05-6566 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. DEAN D I FI L I PPO, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

B e fo re : K EN

NE DY , M AR TI

N a nd SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e s.
SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e . D e an D if

ili pp o c on te nd s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt c le arl y erred

in finding that four pr ior controlled- substance of fense s were unrelated. Disag ree ing, w e af firm.
I.
On Oc tober 13 , 200 4, a

fe de ra l g ra

nd jur y re tur ne d a se ve n- c ount i nd ic tme nt a g a ins t Difilippo a

nd three co-de fenda

nts. Six of the seven counts implicated Difilippo for his involvement in setting fir e to two Chattanoog a, Te nnessee businesses.
This was not Difilippo’s first encounte r with the law. His pre sentenc e re port identified seve n prior cr iminal convict i o n s , i n cl u ding f our violations of the Pennsylvania Dr ug Act. Thre e of the violations stemmed from sales of r elatively small values of c ocaine to an undercove r police of fice r:No. 05-6566

United States v. Difilippo

- 2 - $3 50 on July 27 , 1 98 9; $ 60 0 on Augus t 11 , 1 98 9; a nd $3 50 on F e br ua ry 9, 19 90 . T he fo ur

th violation stemmed from a substantially larg er sa le to the same unde rcove r off icer: $ 1 4 , 5 00 on Fe bruar y 26, 1990.
Pol ic e a r r e s t e d D if ili pp o a ft e r t

he la st s a le . T he state c ourt do c ke te d e a c h v iol a tio n s e pa rate ly and did not enter

a consolidation orde r to c ombine the case s. On Fe bruar y 23, 1991, afte r Difilippo pleade d g uilty , the cour

t se ntence d him to concur rent terms of imprisonment f or eac h violation—9 to 18 months for the first three , 15 months to 5 y ear s for the f ourth.
Be fore his scheduled tria l on the fede ral c harg es, Difilippo pleade d g uilty to two counts of
a idi ngand a

be tti ngars on

in r e tur n f or wh ic h th e g ov e rnme nt d ism iss e d th e re ma ini ngfo ur c ha rg e s. At his sentencinghear ing, the district court determined that the four prior P ennsylvania contr olleds u b s t ance convictions wer e unre lated, see U
. S. S. G
. § 4 A 1
. 2 , ma k in g D if il ip p o a c ar e e r o f f e nder under § 4B 1.1 of the sente ncing g uidelines. Care er- offe nder status incr ease d Difilippo’s g uidelines of fe ns e le ve l f

ro m 23 to 29 and ult imate ly le d to an a dv iso ry g uid e lin e s r ang e of

15 1– 18 8 mo nth s. After considering the § 3553(a) fac tors, the district court sente nced D ifilippo to a 130-month prison term. On a

ppeal, Dif

ilippo cl ai m s t h at t he district cour t erre d in finding his state c ontrolledsubstance c onvictions unrelated.
II.
The fe dera l sentencingg uidelines treat adul t defe ndants as ca ree r off ender s if they

are convicted of

a “c rime of violenc e” a

nd if they “ha[ve] at least two prior felony convictions of . . . aNo. 05-6566

United States v. Difilippo

- 3 - c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e of fe ns e .” U. S.S. G. § 4B 1. 1( a ). Whe n a de fe nd ant satis fi e s the se c on dit ion s, the g uidelines provide a lternative of fense levels , wh ic h

a p ply whene ver the y

exceed the of

fense level “other wise applica

ble” if the defe ndant wer e not dee med a c are er of fende r. Id. § 4B1.1( b).
Arson is a crime of

violence. See id. § 4B1.2( a)( 2) (de fining “cr ime of violence ” to include

“ ars on ” ); id. § 4B1.2 c mt. n.1 (directing courts to count convictions for “ aiding and abe tting” listed of fe ns e s a s c ri me s o f v iol e nc e ). An d th e ars on statut e to whi ch Di fi li ppo p le a de d guil ty c arr ie s a
ma x im um se nte nc e of

20 y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt. See 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). The g uidelines instruct d i s t ri ct courts to assig n an off ense le vel of 32 to ca

ree r off ender s fac ing this much jail time, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1( b)(C), an instruction the di strict court followed befor e g ranting Difilippo a three

level re duction for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty to arrive at a total off

ense le vel of 29. Up to th is p o in t, n o o n e c o mp la in s a b o u t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s g u id e li n e s c a lc u lati o n . The question is whether the court c lear ly err ed in next counting Difilippo’s four prior felonycontrolledsu bs tanc e c on vic tio ns se

pa ra te ly and thus in treatinghim as a caree r off ender
. See U

nited States v. Ho rn , 355 F.3d 610, 613 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (holding that district c ourt’s re latedness de terminations are
re vie we d f

or c le ar e rr or ). The c are e r- of fe nd e r guid e lin e a dv ise s c ourt s to c on su lt the c ri min a lhistory g uideline when “counting
. . . convictions.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.3. And that g uideline
s ay s t h at “[p]rior sentence s . . . in unrelated c ases a re to be counted se parately ,” while “ [p] rior sentenc es . . . in related ca ses ar e to be tre ated a s one sentenc e.” Id . § 4A 1. 2( a )( 2) . App lic a tio n n ote 3 to this guideline, more helpfully , say s that “[p] rior sente nces a re r elated i f t h ey

resulted f

romNo. 05-6566

United States v. Difilippo

- 4 - offe nses that (1) oc curr ed on the same occ asion, (2) w ere part of a s ingle common scheme or plan, or (3) wer e consolidate d for tria l or sentenc ing.”
Measur ed by this standa

rd, the district cour

t’s relatedness finding must be upheld. As to the first fac tor, the prior of

fense s occur

red on se parate occ asions—J uly 27 and August 11 of 1989 a nd Fe bruar y 9 and 26 of 1990. As to the s econd fac tor, the offe nses wer e not par t of a “ single common scheme or plan” beca

use the offe nses wer e not “jointly planned” or “at least” so conne cted “ that the commission of one
. . . entail[ed] the commi ssion of t he other[s ] as well.” United States v. Irons , 196 F.3d 634, 638 ( 6th Cir. 1999) (interna l quotation m arks omitted). No e vidence shows that Difilippo and the under cover office r “jointly

pl an n ed ” the f

our off enses. No e vidence shows that
eac h sale “ entailed,” or for that matter inevitably

led to, the commissio n o f the ne x t sale. And no evidenc e shows that the t hree relatively small coca ine transa ctions were somehow an inter connec ted prelude to the final, substantially larg er $14 , 5 0 0 sale. See U nited States v. Carter , 283 F.3d 755, 757–58 (6th Cir. 2002) (f inding no c ommon scheme or pla n in three pr ior state convic tions for possession w ith intent to sell coc aine; all thre e sale s took place w ithin a single month, the de fenda nt made the sa les to the s ame indivi dual, t he same judge imposed sentenc es for the three offe nses on the s ame day and the sentenc es were se t to run concur rently ). As to the third fa ctor, the state court
never consolidated the c harg es. Difilippo respo n d s t h at P en n s y l v an i a “effec tively consolidated” his prior offe nses by indicting him on them at the same time, acc epting his guilty plea to eac h o n t he same day and order ing the sentenc es for all four of

fense s to run concur

rently . But these fac ts, in th e ab s ence ofNo. 05-6566

United States v. Difilippo

- 5 - a c on so lid a tio n o rd e r, do no t “ de mon str a te an in te nti on on the pa rt of the tr ia l court

to c on so lid a te the ca ses.” Carter , 2 83 F.3 d at 75 8. For on e , a “ jud g me nt . . . pr on ounc e d o n th e same da y wi th sentenc es to run concur

rently , without more , does not e stablish that
. . . offe nses wer e consolidate d.” Id . For another , Difilippo’s decision to plead guilty to eac h offe nse at the same ti me does not show that the Sta te int e nd e d to c on so lid a te the c ha rg e s. F or sti ll an oth e r re a so n, Di fi lip po do e s n ot c la im that th e of

fe ns e s w e re pa

rt of a sin g le ind ic tme nt, and

the fa c t that eac h w a s a ssi g ne d a se pa rate do c ke t numbe r i nd ic a te s th a t th e y we re no t. I f a

ny thi ng , b ri ng ing

fo ur se pa ra te c a se s a g a ins t a

sin g le de fe nd ant w he n th e c a se s w e re ind ic te d “ a t th e same tim e ” su g g e sts that th e State a ff ir ma tiv e ly c ho se to s e pa rate , n ot c on so lid a te , th e c ha rg e s. Difilippo next challeng es the re latedness f inding on a

g round that he did not ra ise in district court—that the tria l court violated his Six th Amendment rig hts by making a judicial fa ct-findingthat his pr ior c on vic tio ns we re un re la te d. F or se ve ra l r e a so ns , h e c ann ot e sta bli shthat th is w a s p la in
err or. As an initial matter, Un ite d S tat es v . A lfo rd , 436 F.3d 677 ( 6th Cir. 2006), permitted the district court to do exactly what it did. There , we he ld that district courts do “not er r by inquiring into whether . . . pr ior convictions . . . [are] related” under § 4A1.2(a )(2)
. Id
. at 681 (e x plaining that such an inquiry fits within the “prior conviction” ex ception to Booke r ). No less importantly , Booke r permits this kind of fact-f inding so long as it is used in connec tion with an advisory g uidel i nes reg ime. See U

nited States v. Booke r , 543 U.S. 220, 233 ( 2005) (“ I f the Guide lines . . . could be re ad
as mere ly advisory provisions that rec ommended, rather than r equire d, the selec tion of a par ticular sentenc e in re sponse to differ ing se ts of fac ts, their use would not implicate the Six th Amendment.”)
.No. 05-6566

United States v. Difilippo

- 6 - He re , th e dis tr ic t c ourt wa s ope ratin g un de r a dv iso ry g uid e lin e s ( a s d e mon str a te d b y its de c isi on

to
se nte nc e Di fi lip po be low

the g uid e lin e s rang e ), and Di fi lip po ple a de d guil ty to a c ri me punis ha

ble by 5 to 20 y ear s’ imprisonment, see 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). Difili ppo’s insistence that the district c ourt’s relatedness inquiry

fell outside of the pr ior-convic tion ex ceptio n t o t h e S ix th Amendment’s limit ation on judicial fac t-finding is thus mi splace d. No er ror oc curr ed, much less a plain err or.
III
. For these re asons, we a ffirm.