United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3028

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Eric Edward Erickson, * * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 23, 1997 Filed: August 12, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Eric Edward Erickson pleaded guilty to possessin g fa lse identification while on pretrial release, i n vi olation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a) and 3147, and t o po ssessing counterfeit securities of VISA while o n pretrial release, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 513(a) andTheHonorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Arkansas. -2- 3147. The district court imposed two 40-month sentences , 1 to be followed by two 6-month sentences, with th e resulting 46-month sentences to be served-3-

concu rrently. On appeal, counsel has filed a brie f purs uant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

. We affirm.

Counsel first argues that the district court erred i n overruling an objection to Erickson's criminal histor y score. He argues, as he did below, that two of th e con victions, for which Erickson received 3 crimina l history po ints each, were sentenced by the same court on the sam e day and resulted in concurrent sentences. Th e Guidelines provide that related cases are to be treate d
as o ne sentence for purposes of calculating th e defendant' s criminal history score, and define "related"
case s as those "result[ing] from offenses that (1 ) occurred o n the same occasion, (2) were part of a single schem e or plan, or (3) were consolidated for trial o r sentencing." U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2), comment. (n.3).
Erickson's prior offenses--escape from a correctiona l institutio n in July 1991, and stealing a car in December 1991 --were neither committed close in time nor similar ; moreover, they had separate docket numbers, and there is no indicat ion that they were part of a similar scheme or plan. Thus, we conclude the district court did not er r in finding the sentences unrelated. See Unit ed States v. Klei n , 13 F.3d 1182, 1185 (8th Cir.) (concurren t sentences had separate docket numbers, underlyin g offe nses occurred on different dates, and there was n o consolidation order), cert. denied , 512 U.S. 1226 (1994); Unite d States v. Lewchuk , 958 F.2d 246, 247 (8th Cir

. 1992) (concurrent sentences imposed at differ ent times by diff erent courts under different docket numbers with n o consolidation order).-4-

Counsel also argues that the district court erred in orde ring the 6-month portion of Erickson's sentences t o be served consecutively to his 40-month sentences. This argument f ails under the plain language of section 3147, which provides that a person who commits an o ffense while
on pretrial release "shall be sentenced, in addition t o the sentence prescribed for the offense to . . . a ter m of imprisonment [which] shall be consecutive to any other sent ence of imprisonment." Because Erickson pleade d guilty-5-

to committ ing the substantive offenses while on release, in violation of section 3147, the district co urt properly ordered the 6-month sentences to be served co nsecutively. See United States v. Lincoln , 956 F.2d 1465, 1472-74 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 891 (1992). Having reviewed the record, we find no othe r nonfrivolous issues. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHT H CIRCUIT.