* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 01-50097 & 01-50098 Summary Calendar

_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(SA-00-CR-228-1-HG)

_________________________________________________________________ October 29, 2001 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The issues raised by appellant Mejia, who pleaded guilty to drug offenses, are the validity of the waiver of appeal in his plea agreement and the application of the career-offender provision
of the sentencing guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment (n.3). Finding no error by the district court, we affirm.2 First, this case is virtually indistinguishable from United States v. Robinson , 187 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 1999), in regard
to the validity of Mejia’s waiver of appeal. As a result, the waiver will not be enforced.

Second, although Mejia asserts tha t his two prior convictions for delivery of cocaine to an undercover officer were part of a “common scheme or plan”, and thus related offenses that
could not be separated for purposes of determining career offender
status, we find the district court’s contrary conclusion more in accord with Fifth Circuit precedent. In two previous cases, this
court held that multiple drug sales , spread over periods ranging from a few hours to nine days, some involving the same undercover
law officers, were nevertheless not part of a “common scheme or plan” under § 4A1.2. S ee United States v. Garcia , 962 F.2d 479,
481-82 (5th Cir. 1992). U nited States v. Ford , 996 F.2d 83, 85-86 (5th Cir. 1993). As the court noted in Ford , where each sale was separated by hours, if not days, “The fact that the buyer was the

same did not make the sales ‘related’ any more than if Ford made
four separate trips to the same H.E.B. in one week to buy groceries. . .” Id . at 86.

Our decision in Robinson , supra , on which Mejia relies,
held that two drug sales were part of a common scheme or plan where
the defend ant “planned” the commission of the second sale while committing the first crime, the second offense was “not a spur of the moment occurrence,” and the second offense “necessarily3

entailed the commission of the first offense”. R obinson carefully distinguishes Garcia and Ford . Here, no such distinction is possible. There is no evidence that Mejia gave his phone number to the agent during the first sale in order to set up a later sale. Instead, Mejia was hoping to be called for legitimate landscaping employment. And the second sale was accomplished in a different

manner than the first. Were we to accept Mejia’s argument, Robinson would vi rtually and impermissibly overrule G arcia and
Ford

. But as F ord says, “there was no common scheme or plan -- simply convenience and experience.” 996 F.2d at 82.

The sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED
.