FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT DEC 13 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12679 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 03 -C R -6 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A N T O N I O S . D A V I S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 13, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A pp el l antA nt on i o S . D avi s app ea l s hi s 178 -m on th sent ence i m po se d aft er p le a d in g g u iltyto p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e h y d r o c h lo r id e , in2

vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) . H e a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n f i ndi ng thathe had tw o separ at e a gg ra vat ed as saul tconv i ct i on s t o q ual i fyhi m as a c ar ee r offe nd erun der U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 1 b ec ause : (1) a cc ordi ng t o the pres ent ence i n v est i g at i o n rep o rt(“ P S I”), h e w as arrest ed o n Jan u ary 1 6 , 1 9 9 4 , fo r th e fi rst a g g r a v a te d a s s au lt, a n d o n J a n u a ry 2 0 , 1 9 9 4 , f o rth e s e c o n d , a n d , th u s , “[ t]h e o n ly c onc l us i on tha tc a n be dr a w n . . . i s tha tthe a rr e s tof J a nua ry 20, 1994, i s f

or of f e ns e s tha toc c urr e d on J a nua ry 16, 1994, s i nc e he w a s i nc a r c e r a t e d on J a nua ry 20, 1994; ” a nd ( 2) the tw o c onvi c t i ons m i ghtha ve be e n c ons ol i da t e d f or s e n te n c in g , th u s c o n s titu tin g o n lyo n e r e la te d o f f e n s e u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .2 .

“ W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tpr i orc onvi c t i ons a r e not re l at ed un der U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 2 for cl ear e rr or. ” U n i ted S ta tes v. H

ern a n dezM art i nez , 3 8 2 F .3 d 1 3 0 4 , 1 3 0 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . U nd er§ 4 A 1. 2, i n cal cul at i ng a c ri m i nal hi st ory s core , pri or se nt ence s im p o s e d f

o rr e la te d c o n v ic tio n s s h o u ld b e c o u n te d a s o n e s e n te n c e . See U. S . S . G. § 4 A 1 . 2 (a)(2 ). T h e co m m en t ary p ro v i d es: P ri or se nt ence s are no tconsi dere d rel at ed i f they w er e f or offe nses th a t w e r e s e p a r a te d b y a n in te rv e n in g arr e s t ( i . e. , th e d e f e n d a n t is a rr e s te d f

o rth e f ir s t o f f e n s e p r io rto c o m m ittin g th e s e c o n d o f f e n s e ) . O the rw i s e , pr i ors e nt e nc e s a r e c ons i de r e d r e l a t e d i f the y r e s ul t e d f

r om offe nses that(1) occ urre d o n the sa m e occ as i on , (2) w er e partof a s i ngl e c om m on s c he m e orpl a n, or( 3) w e r e c ons ol i da t e d f ortr i a l or s e nt e nc i ng.3

U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .2 , c o m m e n t. ( n . 3 ) . W e ha ve he l d tha tthe f

a c ttha tj oi nts e nt e nc i ng f ora dm i ni s tr a t i ve conv eni ence and i m po si t i on of concurrentse nt ence s does notre nd ertw o o ff ense s r e la te d u n d e rth e G u id e lin e s . U n ite d S ta te s v . Sm ith , 3 8 5 F .3 d 1 3 4 2 , 1 3 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , v ac ate d on othe rgr ounds , 543 U . S . 1181 ( 2005) . I n Sm ith , 38 5 F . 3d at 13 46 , w e not ed: “ (1) there w as no form al consol i dat i on order; (2) the ca se s had b e e n a s s ig n e d d if

f e r e n t d o c k e t n u m b e r s ; a n d ( 3 ) [ th e d e f e n d a n t] r e c e iv e d s e p a r a te j udgm e nt s . ” T he r e f

or e , e ve n though the de f e nda nt ’ s c a s e s ha d be e n “ he a r d by the s a m e s ta te ju d g e a t th e s a m e tim e ,” th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t c le a r lye rrin d e te rm in in g th a t th is w a s d o n e f o rth e a d m in is tr a tiv e c o n v e n ie n c e o f th e c o u rt. I

d. A f te rr e v ie w in g th e r e c o r d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t c le a r ly err i n fi nd i ng thatD avi s’ s pri or aggravat ed as saul toffe nses w er e unrel at ed un der § 4 A 1. 2. F i rs t , despi t e D avi s’ s a ss ert i on thatthe tw o o ff ense s m usthave occurre d on the s a m e da t e , the P S I ’ s f a c tua l de s c r i pt i on of

e a c h of f e ns e i ndi c a t e s tha tone of f e ns e oc c urr e d on J a nua ry 9, w hi l e the othe roc c urr e d on J a nua ry 16. S e c ond, ourpr e c e de ntpr ovi de s tha tj oi nts e nt e nc i ng doe s notr e nde rtw o of f e ns e s r e l a t e d, es peci al l y w here , as here , the offens es had separ at e docketnu m bers , and there w as n o f o rm a l c o n s o lid a tio n o r d e r . See Sm ith , 3 8 5 F . 3 d at1 3 4 6 . A cco rd i n g l y, b ecau se th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t clear ly err in fin d in g th e o ff en se s u n re lated an d D av is’s4

ar gu m ent s are w i tho utm er i t , w e a ff i rm hi s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.