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[UNPUBLISHED]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 possessing

false identification while on pretrial release, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a) and 3147, and to

possessing counterfeit securities of VISA while on

pretrial release, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 513(a) and
The Honorable 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 the

resulting 46-month sentences to be served 
-3-

concurrently. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

We affirm.

Counsel first argues that the district court erred in

overruling an objection to Erickson's criminal history

score. He argues, as he did below, that two of the

convictions, for which Erickson received 3 criminal

history points each, were sentenced by the same court on

the same day and resulted in concurrent sentences. The

Guidelines provide that related cases are to be treated

as one sentence for purposes of calculating the

defendant's criminal history score, and define "related"

cases as those "result[ing] from offenses that (1)

occurred on the same occasion, (2) were part of a single

scheme or plan, or (3) were consolidated for trial or

sentencing." U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2), comment. (n.3).

Erickson's prior offenses--escape from a correctional

institution 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 indication that they were part of a similar scheme or

plan. Thus, we conclude the district court did not err

in finding the sentences unrelated. See United States v.

Klein, 13 F.3d 1182, 1185 (8th Cir.) (concurrent

sentences had separate docket numbers, underlying

offenses occurred on different dates, and there was no

consolidation order), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1226 (1994);

United States v. Lewchuk, 958 F.2d 246, 247 (8th Cir.

1992) (concurrent sentences imposed at different times by

different courts under different docket numbers with no

consolidation order).
-4-

Counsel also argues that the district court erred in

ordering the 6-month portion of Erickson's sentences to

be served consecutively to his 40-month sentences. This

argument fails under the plain language of section 3147,

which provides that a person who commits an offense while

on pretrial release "shall be sentenced, in addition to

the sentence prescribed for the offense to . . . a term

of imprisonment [which] shall be consecutive to any other

sentence of imprisonment." Because Erickson pleaded

guilty 
-5-

to committing the substantive offenses while on release,

in violation of section 3147, the district court properly

ordered the 6-month sentences to be served consecutively.

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 other

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, EIGHTH

CIRCUIT.