2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
4-8-2004 

# U S A v . M or a-Zap at a P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3072

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . M or a -Zap at a " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 848. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/848NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

____________ No. 03-3072

____________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. ELMER DEJESUS MORA -ZAPATA

a/k/ a CARL OS a/ k/aPEDRO COTTO a/k/ a HELMER J ESUS MORA a/k/ a ELMER MORA Elmer DeJesus Mora-Zapat a, Appellant

____________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. No. 02-cr -00580-1) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Michael M. Bay lson

____________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

March 30, 2004 Be for e: A LIT O, F ISH ER and AL DI SE RT , Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed: April8, 2004)

____________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

____________2

FIS HE R, Circu it Judge
. On Feb ruary 19 , 2003 , Ap pellan t Elm er D ejesus M ora-Z apata pled g uilty to six drug-re late d offenses. In calc ulating Mora-Zapata’s sentence , the United Stat es District Court for t

he Easter n Distri ct of Pennsylvania deemed Mora-Zapata to be a “career offender” under

U.S.S.G. § 4B1. 1 because of Mora-Zapat a’s two prior fel ony dr ug convict ions. Mora-Zapata chal lenges t he dist rict court’ s “caree r offender” decisi on on gro und s tha t the t wo prio r fel ony d rug con victi ons we re “r elate d ca ses” und er U .S.S .G. § 4A1.2 that

cannot suppor

t a “car eer offender ” designation. Becaus e the two prior fel ony drug convictions were not “related case s,” we affi rm Mora-Zapata’s sentence .

I. Section 4B1. 1 of the Sent encing Guidel ines, the “car eer offender ” provis ion, mand ates an enh ancem ent wh ere a defe ndant co nvicted of a crime of

violence o r a control led subst ance offense “ha s at l east t wo prior fel ony convi ctions of either a cri me of violenc e or a controll ed substance offense. ” U.S.S.G. § 4B1. 1(a). Whether pri or felony convict ions act

ually consti tute “ two prior

felony convict ions” for

purposes of § 4B1. 1(a) turns o n w hethe r “the s enten ces fo r ... [those ] felon y convic tions ar e cou nted s epara tely under the pr ovisi ons of § 4A1.1(a) , (b) , or ( c).” U. S.S.G. § 4B1.2( c). Section 4A1.2(a)( 2) provi des that “[p]ri or sent ences imposed in relat ed cases ar e to be treate d as
one sen tence for p urposes o f § 4A 1.1(a), (b), or (c).” U.S.S.G . § 4A1 .2(a)(2).1 As Mora-Zapata corre ctly points out, hi s prior

drug-re late d offenses were not separat ed by an i nterveni ng arres t and are theref ore not di squali fied from bei ng “related” under the “ inter

vening arr est” pr ong of Applicat ion Note 3 to U. S.S.G. § 4A1.1. 3 Ap plication No te 3 to § 4A 1.1 ex plains w hen p rior sen tence s are co nside red to have been “imposed in relat ed cases” for purposes of § 4B1. 1: Prior s entences are not c onsider ed related if they were for offenses t

hat were separated by

an inte rvening ar

rest (i. e., the defendant i s arre sted for the fi rst of

fense pri or to committing the second of

fense). Otherwise pr ior se ntences are consi dered relat ed if they r esult ed from offenses t hat (A) occur

red on the same occasi on, (B) were par t of a si ngle common scheme or plan, or (C) were cons olidat ed for trial or sentencing. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 a

ppl. not e 3. The district c ourt des ignate d Mora-Zapata as a “c areer off ender” under

§ 4B1.1(a) because of Mora-Zapat a’s two prior fel ony dr ug convict ions i n the Unite d States Distri ct Court for t

he Middle District of

Pennsylvania – Cri minal No. 84- 00159, a convi ction f or drug dist ribut ion-r elat ed offenses bas ed on conduct t hat occur red on or about Septem ber 25, O ctober 2 an d Oc tober 25, 19 84 (the “15 9 offen se” or “15 9 conv iction”); and CriminalNo. 85-00193, a c onvicti on for drug di stribution- relat ed offenses bas ed on conduct that occur

red between ear ly

1983 and the summer of 1984, though dis tinct from the conduct

underlying the 159 of

fense (t he “193 offense” or

“193 convict ion”). MoraZapata cont ends that

the 159 and 193 convi ctions were not separ ate “pr ior fel ony convict ions” because (a) they “occurre d on the same occas ion” or (b) “were part of a singl e common scheme or plan” wit hin the meani ng of Applicat ion Note 3 to § 4A1. 1. 12 We have not yet specifi call y deci ded what standard of revi ew governs a dis tri ct court’ s deter

minati on that prior fel ony offens es occurr ed on the “same occasion, ” though we have determine d that a district court’ s deter

minati on that a

defendant’ s prior

drug convict ions were par

t of a “si ngle common scheme or pl an” must be re viewed only for “clear error .” See Un ited Sta tes v. B ecke tt , 208 F.3d 140, 147 (3d Cir. 2000). We need not deci de whether the clear ly erroneous standar d also appl ies t o “same occasi on” determinations because the dist rict court ’s decision at i ssue here survives even the most se ar ch in g s cr ut in y. 3 We assume arguendo that t he conduct under ly ing the 193 c onvicti on extended beyond the summer of 1984 until December of 1984. A s the presentence report r eflects, however, the government’s intende d proofs i n the 193 matt er would only have support ed cond uct oc currin g fro m ea rly 1983 throu gh th e sum mer o f 19 84, thu s con cludin g prio r to the conduct

underlying the 159 c onvicti on. We need not consi der thi s factua l is sue further because even Mora-Zapat a’s desc ript ion of the timi ng of his conduct does not supp ort a fin ding of “s ame occa sion” und er ou r interpre tation o f the c once pt. 4 II. The district c ourt’ s deter minati on that Mora-Zapat a’s 159 and 193 convi ctions
wer e n ot“r el at edca se s” was not erro ne ous und er

an y st an da rdof

re vi ew. 2 The 159 and 193 convict ions were not “related case s” because t he offenses underly ing them di d not occur on the “same occasion.” M ora-Zapata submits that an “occasion” can be months,
or ev en years; th at the c ond uct un derlying th e 193 conv iction, alle ged in the ind ictme nt to have occurr ed during t

he period f

rom early

1983 through December 1984, defines an “occasi on”; and that becaus e the conduct underlying the 159 c onvicti on occurred be tween early 1983 and December 1984, it occurred on t

he “same occasi on” as the c onduct underlying the 193 c onvicti on. 3 Mora-Zapata’s deline ation of “occasi on” oblit erate s the conce pt and rec ognizes no discer nible l imit s to i ts scope . If an “ occasion” can be a peri od of almost t wo years , why4 The Fifth Cir cuit in Moreno-Arredondo did rec ogn ize tha t non -temp oral ele men ts

such as the simil arit

y and geogr aphicalproximit y of t he prior offenses coul d be consider ed, but

that “ [o]nly

the ext ent of the temporalseparat ion between commiss ions can be contr olli ng for purpose s of the s ame-occurr ence prong[. ]” Moreno-Arredondo , 255 F.3d at 207. Mora-Zapata rel ies heavi ly on Moreno-Arredondo because i t invol ved one of the r are ins tances where a court f ound that prior offens es had occurr ed on the “sam e occ asion .” Bu t Moreno-Arredondo is hi ghly dist inguis hable fr om this cas e: the offenses under ly ing the de fendant’ s prior convict ions there (i ndecencywith a chi ld) occurred within minut

es of each ot

her without

inter rupti on at preci

sely t he same locati on – the same seat on the c ouch in the livi ng room of the home in which de fendant, the victi ms, and the victi ms’ mother r esided. The Fifth Cir cuit only exami ned the nat ure and location of the offense s because the tempo ral separation betw een the of fenses (m ere minutes) was de m inim is
. 5 not fiv e years, ten years or tw enty years? Perh aps if th e con duct a t issue is c losely connected i n terms of t

he ident iti es of the off

enses, victi ms and accomplice s, an expansive interpr etat ion of “occas ion” might be permiss ible. But then, these for ms of relat edness ar e alre ady cove red by § 4A1.2's “ singl e common scheme or plan” pr ovisi on. Courts t end to regard temporalconcerns as control ling i n assess ing whether conduct occur

red on the “ same occasi on.” See United States v. Moreno-Arre dondo , 255 F.3d 19 8, 207 (5 th Cir .), cert. denied , 122 S.C t. 491 (2001 ). 4 For example, in United States v. Paden , 330 F.3d 1066 (8 th Cir. 2003 ), the Eighth C ircuit found tha t defenda nt’s offenses on January

1, 1990 and Januar

y 5, 1990 did not occ ur on the “s ame occasion” bec aus e the y we re se par ated by fo ur d ays. Paden , 330 F .3d at 1 067 . Wh ile we declin e to sayprecis ely

how close toget

her in t ime offenses must have occur red in or der to have taken pl ace on the “s ame occasion, ” it i s clear that where , as her e, offens es occurr ed on6

multi ple dif

ferent days over a span of more than one y ear, t hey cannot be sai d to have
occ urre d on the “ sam e oc cas ion .” Mora-Zapata’s atte mpt alt ernati vely to fit his 159 and 193 convi ctions into t he “singl e common scheme or plan” pr ong of § 4A1.2 simil arly fail s. Mora-Zapat a argues that hi s prior

convict ions were par

t of a “si ngle common scheme or pl an” because t hey involved “ alle ged cocaine s ales dur ing the s ame continuous period of time in the Poconoarea of t he Middle District of

Pennsylvania. ” In other words, Mora-Zapata

would have us find that repeated commissi ons of the s ame crime in t he same generalgeographic area over a span of more than one y ear suffi ces to es tabli sh a “si ngle common scheme or plan .” Mo ra-Zapata b ears the burd en of estab lishing that the prior con victions we re part of a com mo n sc hem e or plan
. Bec kett , 208 F .3d at 1 47 (c itation o mitted ). We noted in Bec kett “tha t t

he te rms ‘s ch eme ’ and ‘ pl an ’ are wor ds of in te nt io n, im pl y in g tha t [ th e two offenses] have been joi ntly planned, or at l east t

hat it would have been evide nt that the commission of one would e ntailthe commissi on of the other as well .” Id. at 147 (quot ing Un ited Sta tes v. A li , 951 F.2d 827, 828 (7 th Cir. 1992 )) (int ernal quot ation mar ks omitted). Mora-Zapata offer ed nothing at his sentencing hearing t o demonstrat e that the 159 and 193 offenses had be en jointly planned, and does not eve n atte mpt to do so i n his bri ef to thi s Court. Nor has Mora-Zapata offer ed any e vidence or argument showing t

hat the7

commission of one of

the offense s underl yi ng one of the convi ctions “entai l[ed] t he commission of t

he other[ s] as well .” Indee d, the conduct under ly ing the 159 and 193 convict ions i s marked by its dist incti veness. While the 159 convi ction involved four di st ributio ns of

co ca in e t o the sa me u nde rc ove r s tate tr oop er an d i nf orman t i n two Pennsylvania t owns over the span of one month (Sept ember 1984 - October 1984), t he 193 convict ion invol ved more than si xty differe nt dis tributions of vary ing amounts of cocaine t o seven diffe rent buy ers i n multi ple loc ations in central Penns yl vania over a span of approximat ely

eighte en months prece ding September 1984. Moreover, accepting Mora-Zapata’ s bare as sert ion that repeat ed commissions of simil ar cri mes over a span of more than one y ear suffi ces to es tabli sh that those cr imes were part of a

singl e common scheme or plan would, as the Fi fth Circ uit has recogniz ed, “l ead to th e i ll ogi calre sul t t

hat a de fen dan t wh o i s r epe at edl y con vi ct ed o f the s ame offense on dif

ferent occasions could never

be consider ed a career

offender under

the guidelines.” Un ited Sta tes v. G arcia , 962 F.2d 479, 482 (5 th Cir. 1992) . Accordingly, the district court di d not err

in concl uding that

the 159 and 193 offens es were not par t of “single common schem e or plan” for purposes of § 4A1 .2 of the Guidelines. For th e fore goin g reas ons, w e aff irm the district co urt’s jud gm ent.

________________________