FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 14, 2007 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- 15535 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 0 4 6 - C R - F T M- 2 9 - DN F 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 H E C T O R R O Y W A T S O N , 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 14, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

H e c t orR oy W a t s on appe a l s hi s 120- m onth s e nt e nc e f ordrug tr a f

f i c ki ng offe nses . S peci fi ca l l y, W at son argues thathe shou l d n othave rec ei ved a car ee r offe nd erenhancem ent , pu rs uantt o U ni t ed S t at es S ent enci ng G ui del i ne § 4 B 1. 1(b), cont endi ng thatthe three predi ca t e off ense s on w hi ch thi s e nh ance m entw as base d w e r e r e l a t e d a n d s h o u l d h a v e c o u n t e d a s o n e p r e d i c a t e o f f e n s e . We A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D A f e d e r a l g r a n d ju ry in d ic te d W a ts o n o n tw o c o u n ts o f p o s s e s s in g w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te f

iv e g r a m s o rm o r e o f

c r a c kc o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 )(B )(i i i ), an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 . W at so n p l ed g u i l ty t o th ese c h a r g e s , w ith o u t th e b e n e f it o f ap le aa g r e e m e n t. B ef ore W at son’ s s ent enci ng , a probat i on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) , w hi c h i ni t i a l l y s e tW a t s on’ s ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l a t26, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(c) (200 5). T he prob at i on offi ce r det erm i ned that W at son w as a c ar ee r off ender, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 1(a) . T he P S I l i st ed W at son’ s pre di ca t e off

ense s a s: (1) aF l ori da st at e c ou rtconv i ct i on for a gg ra vat ed a s s au lt w ith ad e a d ly w e ap o n , s te m m in g f r o m a n in c id e n t th a t o c c u rr e d o n 1 1 J u ly 19 94 , i n C as e N o. C F -941 33 6; (2) aF l ori da st at e c ou rtconv i ct i on for a gg ra vat ed a s s au lt w ith ad e a d ly w e ap o n , s te m m in g f r o m a n in c id e n t th a t o c c u rr e d o n 2 6 J u ly 1994, i n C a s e N o. C F - 941337; a nd ( 3) aF l or i das t a t e c our tc onvi c t i on f or3

a g g r a v a te d a s s au lt, s te m m in g f r o m a n in c id e n t th a t o c c u rr e d o n 2 8 A u g u s t 1 9 9 4 , in Ca s e N o . CF- 9 4 1 3 3 8 . W a t s o n w a s a rr e s t e d f o re a c h o f

th e s e o f f e n s e s o n th e s a me da y a nd w a s s e nt e nc e d f ore a c h of

the s e c onvi c t i ons on the s a m e da y . B a s e d on th e d e te rm in a tio n th a t W a ts o n q u a lif ie d f o rc a r e e ro f

f e n d e rs ta tu s , th e P S I s e t h is enhanced base off

ense l evel at34 , pu rs uantt o § 4B 1. 1(b), si nce the st atut ory m a xi m um f

orhi s i ns t a ntof

f e ns e s w a s 40 y e a r s of

i m pr i s onm e nt , pur s ua ntt o 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (b)( 1)(B ). T he P S I then app l i ed a three l evel re du ct i on for a cc ept ance o f r e s p o n s ib ility , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 ( a ) a n d ( b ) . T h e P S I i n i t i a l l y c a l c u l a t e d Wa t s o n ’ s c r i m i n a l h i s t o ry c a t e g o ry a tV. A ft er the prob at i on offi ce r det erm i ned thatW at son w as a c ar ee r off ender, hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory w as se tatV I, pu rs uantt o § 4B 1. 1(b). A c c o r d in g ly , w ith th is c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory a nd at ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l of

31, W a t s on’ s gui de l i ne im p r is o n m e n t r a n g e w a s 1 8 8 - 2 3 5 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t. In hi s obj ec t i on s t o the P S I, W at son att ac ked h i s c ar ee r off ender enhancem ent , ar gu i ng thathi s three pri or conv i ct i on s w er e r el at ed, such thatthey c om pr i s e d onl y one pr e di c a t e of f e ns e . A thi s i ni t i a l s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, W a t s on r e p e a te d h is o b

je c tio n to h is c a r e e ro f

f e n d e re n h a n c e m e n t. H e a s s e r te d th a t h is pri or conv i ct i on s e ac h st em m ed fr om a di sput e betw ee n h i s e x-gi rl fr i end and her fa m i l y and fr i ends, thatthere w er e no i nt erveni ng arre st s betw ee n the three4

i nc i de nt s i n que s t i on, a nd tha the w a s s e nt e nc e d on the s a m e da y f ore a c h pr i or c onvi c t i on. T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponde d tha tthe thr e e i nc i de nt s i n que s t i on t ook p la c e s e v e r a l d a y s ap a r t a n d th a t th e p r io rc o n v ic tio n s w e r e n o t f o rm a lly c o n s o lid a te d , w e r e a s s ig n e d d if f e r e n t d o c k e t s h e e ts , a n d r e c e iv e d s e p a r a te j udgm e nt s , s uc h tha tthe y s houl d c ounts e pa r a t e l y f orc a r e e rof

f e nde rc a l c ul a t i on purpos e s . T he di s tr i c tc our tove rrul e d W a t s on’ s obj e c t i on, f i ndi ng tha tthe pr i or c onvi c t i ons w e r e notr e l a t e d be c aus e the y di d nota r i s e f r om i nc i de nt s oc c urr i ng on the s a m e oc c a s i on, w e r e notpa r tof as i ngl e c om m on s c he m e orpl a n, a nd w e r e not form al l y or f

un ct i on al l y c on sol i dat ed for s ent enci ng because they w er e a ss i gn ed s e p a r a te c a s e n u m b e r s . W a ts o n a ls o o b

je c te d to th e P S I ’s f

a c tu a l d e s c r ip tio n o f

h is p r e d ic a te of f e ns e s . W a t s on a r gue d tha thi s e x- gi r l f r i e nd a nd he rf

a m i l y a nd f

r i e nds co n co ct ed th o se ch arg es an d th ath e w as i n n o cen to f th e ch arg es. W at son asked f ora n oppor tuni ty t o pr e s e ntt e s t i m ony on thi s a r gum e nt . T he gove rnm e nt r e s ponde d tha tW a t s on’ s s e nt e nc i ng f oradi f f e r e ntof f e ns e w a s “ notthe t i m e or pl a c e ” t o c ha l l e nge hi s pr e vi ous c onvi c t i ons . R 3 a t20. T he di s tr i c tc our ta gr e e d, s t a t i ng tha tW a t s on’ s i nnoc e nc e of thos e c ha r ge s w a s i rr e l e va nta nd tha tthe char ges w ou l d n otbe re -l i t i gat ed. W hen W at son u rged the di stri ctcourtt o h ear thi s t es t i m on y bec ause i tm i gh ti nfl uence the di stri ctcourt ’ s f as hi on i ng of a5

r e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e , the di s tr i c tc our ta ga i n r e f us e d. A tthe c ont i nua t i on of

hi s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, W a t s on r e vi s i t e d the i s s ue of w h e th e rh is p r e d ic a te o f f e n s e s w e r e r e la te d , s ta tin g th a t h e h a d o b ta in e d th e s ta te courtdo cum ent s f

or these pri or conv i ct i on s and had l earned thatce rt ai n o f them w e r e a ddr e s s e d on one s c or e s he e tf ors t a t e c our ts e nt e nc i ng purpos e s . W a t s on ar gu ed thatthe fa ctthatthe conv i ct i on s w er e s ent ence d u si ng the sa m e s core shee t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t th e c a s e s w e r e c o n s o lid a te d . T h e g o v e rn m e n t r e ite r a te d its previ ou s argum ent s. T he di stri ctfoun d thatthe use of asi ng l e s core shee tw as i nsuffi ci entt o sho w thatthe ca se s w er e r el at ed and repeat ed i t s e ar l i erfi nd i ng that th e p red i cat e o ffen ses sh o u l d co u n tsep arat el y. T h e s ta te c o u r t d o c u m e n ts f o rth e p r io rc o n v ic tio n s w e r e s u b m itte d in to ev i d en ce. T h ese ex h i b i t s d em o n strat e th e fo l l o w i n g . T h e ch arg es i n C ase N o s. C F - 9 4 1 3 3 6 , C F - 9 4 1 3 3 7 , a n d C F - 9 4 1 3 3 8 e a c h w e r e c o n ta in e d in s e p a r a te i nf orm a t i ons . W a t s on pl e d nol o c ont e nde r e t o e a c h c ha r ge . I n C a s e N o. C F - 941336, W a t s on w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 24 m onths of c om m uni ty c ontr ol , t o be s e rve d c ons e c ut i ve t o the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d i n C a s e N o. C F - 941314. I n C a s e N o. C F - 941337, W a t s on w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 24 m onths of c om m uni ty c ontr ol , t o be s e rv e d c o n c u rr e n tly w ith th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d in C a s e N o . C F - 9 4 1 3 3 6 . F in a lly , in C a s e N o. C F - 941338, W a t s on w a s s e nt e nc e d t o f i ve y e a r s of

pr oba t i on, t o be6

se rved consecut i ve t o the se nt ence i m po se d i n cas e N o. C F -941 33 7. T hese s sen t en ces w ere reflect ed i n sep arat e j u d g m en t s. T h ese st at e co u rtd o cu m en t s al so i ncl ud ed the sc ores heetused atW at son’ s s ent enci ng . T hi s s core shee tl i st ed W a t s on’ s c onvi c t i on f

ora ggr a va t e d a s s aul tw i th no de a dl y w e apon i n C a s e N o. C F - 9 4 1 3 3 8 a s h is “p r im a ry o f f e n s e ” a n d h is c o n v ic tio n f o ra g g r a v a te d a s s au lt in ca se N o. C F -941 33 7 as an “ addi t i on al offe nse. ” E xh . F ol der 1, E xh . C at unnum be r e d 5. I n the bott om r i ght - ha nd c orne rof the s c or e s he e t , the pe r s on w ho pr e pa r e d i ti ndi c a t e d tha tthe s c or e s he e tw a s “ P ape rN o. 22” i n “ C a s e N o. [ C F - 9 4 1 3 1 4 ].” I d . T he di stri ctcourtadop t ed the P S I, and st at ed thati thad con si dere d the § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s a n d f

o u n d th a t as e n te n c e o f

1 2 0 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t a s to ea ch coun t , t o b e s erved con curr ent l y, w as suff i ci entbu tno tgrea t erthan n ec es sary for the pu rposes of se nt enci ng . In i t s s t at em entof re as on s, the di stri ctcourtst at ed tha tthi s va r i a nc e w a s gr a nt e d t o r e f l e c tW a t s on’ s pos t - of

f e ns e r e habi l i t a t i on. I I . DI S CUS S I ON W at son argues thatthe three predi ca t e off ense s w er e r el at ed because they stem m ed fr o m a s er ies o f a lt er ca ti o n s b etw ee n h im se lf an d h is ex -g irlfrien d ’s f a m ily a n d f

r ie n d s , w h o c o n c o c te d c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im in a n e f f o r t to d is c r e d itThe thre e pre dicate of fe n s es were: (1) a

Florida state cour

t conviction for ag gravated 1 assault with a d ea d l y

wea pon, stemming from an incident that occurre d on 11 July 1994; (2) a Florida state cour

t conviction for a ggrav at ed assa ult with a deadly

wea pon, stemming from an incident that occur

red on 26 July 1994; a

nd (3) a Florida state court conviction f o r a ggravated assault, stemming f

rom an incident that occur red on 28 August 1994. Watson expressly

declines to attack the reasona bleness of his sentence on a ppeal. Aside 2 fr o m h i s ar gument that his predicate offenses were re lated for career offender c lassification purposes, Watson argues that the district court erred in failing to consider his arguments that he wa s innocent of the se pre dicate of fense s. This argument is without m erit, however, a s we have held that defendants in federal sentencingproce eding s may not attack c ollaterally

those state cour

t convictions used to support a § 4B 1.1 career offender enhancement, except where the attack is based on violation s o f th e right to counsel. United States v. Fa rris, 77 F .3d 391, 397 (11th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). 7 hi m . A s are sul t , he cont ends, he had o nl y one predi ca t e off ense and, there fore , 1 w as no ta c ar ee r off

ender. T he go vernm entre spon ds thatthe predi ca t e off ense s pr ope r l y w e r e c ount e d s e pa r a t e l y a nd the pr i orc onvi c t i ons w e r e notr e l a t e d. A f t e rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) , the s e nt e nc i ng c our tf

i r s tm us tc orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e the gui de l i ne i m pr i s onm e ntr a nge and then m usttre atthatrang e a s a dv i soryand i m po se a r ea sonabl e s ent ence . 2 U n it ed S tates v . T alley, 4 8 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) ( p ercu riam ). “W e re vi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatpri or conv i ct i on s are no tre l at ed un der U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 2 f

orc l e a re rr or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e rna nde z - M a r t i ne z , 382 F . 3d 1 3 0 4 , 1 3 0 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( c ita tio n a n d f o o tn o te o m itte d ) . T h e c a r e e ro f

f e n d e rp r o v is io n o f

th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s p r o v id e s th a t [a] d efen d an ti s a career o ffen d er i f (1 ) th e d efen d an tw as atl east e i ght e e n y e a r s ol d a tthe t i m e the de f e nda ntc om m i tt e d the i ns t a nt of f e ns e of c onvi c t i on; ( 2) the i ns t a ntof f e ns e of c onvi c t i on i s af

e l ony8

tha ti s e i the rac r i m e of

vi ol e nc e orac ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e of f e ns e ; a nd (3) the defendanthas a tl ea sttw o p ri or fe l on y c on vi ct i on s of e i ther a c r im e o f v io le n c e o rac o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o f f e n s e . U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 1( a ) . R e ga r di ng the thi r d pr ong of thi s t e s t , the G ui de l i ne s pr ovi de tha tw he the rpr i orc onvi c t i ons a r e c ount e d s e pa r a t e l y de pe nds on w he the rthe s e nt e nc e s i m pos e d f

orthos e c onvi c t i ons w e r e c ount e d s e pa r a t e l y i n c a l c ul a t i ng the de f e nda nt ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory . S e e U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 2( c ) . P ur s ua ntt o the p r o v is io n s th a t g u id e c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry c a lc u la tio n , c r im in a l h is to ry p o in ts a r e a s s i gne d f

ore a c h pr i ors e nt e nc e , butthos e pr i ors e nt e nc e s s t e m m i ng f r om

“ re l at ed” c as es ar e “ tre at ed as on e s ent ence . ” U . S . S . G . §§ 4A 1. 1(a) , (b), and (c) a n d 4 A 1 .2 ( a ) ( 2 ) . T h e c o m m e n ta ry to § 4 A 1 .2 e x p la in s th a t p r io rs e n te n c e s a r e u n r e la te d if the y w e r e f

orof f e ns e s tha tw e r e “ s e pa r a t e d by a n i nt e rve ni ng a rr e s t , ” buttha tpr i or s e n t e n c e s a r e r e l a t e d i f

th e y r e s u l t e d f

r o m o f f e n s e s th a t( 1 ) o c c u rr e d o n th e s a me occa si on , (2) w er e partof a s i ng l e c om m on sc hem e or pl an, or (3) w er e c ons ol i da t e d f

ors e nt e nc i ng. U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 2, c m t . n. 3. C ons ol i da t i on f or s e nt e nc i ng ge ne r a l l y r e qui r e s af orm a l c ons ol i da t i on or de r . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, 38 5 F . 3d 13 42 , 13 45 -46 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ) ( per c uri am ), vaca t ed on other gr ounds , 543 U . S . 1181, 125 S . C t . 1401 ( 2005) ( va c a t i ng a nd r e m a ndi ng i n l i ght o f B o o k er); H ern an d ez-M art i n ez, 3 8 2 F . 3 d at1 3 0 7 . In B u fo rd v . U n i t ed S t at es,9

ho w ever , the S up re m e C ou rtapprov ed of the S eventh C i rc ui t ’ s hol di ng that predi ca t e off

ense s are “ funct i on al l y c on sol i dat ed” f or se nt enci ng , and there fore re l at ed, w hen they a re “ fa ctual l y or l og i ca l l y r el at ed, and sent enci ng w as j oi nt . ” 53 2 U . S . 59 , 61 , 12 1 S . C t . 12 76 , 12 78 (200 1) (c i t at i on and q uo t at i on om i tt ed). R e ga r di ng w he the rpr e di c a t e of f e ns e s w e r e pa r tof

ac om m on s c he m e or pl a n, i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V e t e t o, w e he l d tha tthi s “ i s ahi ghl y f a c t - i nt e ns i ve que s t i on. ” 920 F . 2d 823, 825 ( 11th C i r . 1991) . I n tha tc a s e , the de f e nda nt ’ s pr i or c r im e s c o n s is te d o f

ab u r g la ry o f

ar e s id e n c e a n d a n a rm e d r o b b e ry o f ah o te l, w hi ch w er e c om m i tt ed ov era m on th apart . Id. at82 4. T he defendantar gu ed that these pri or cr i m es w er e partof a c om m on sc hem e bec ause he com m i tt ed bo th i n an e f f o r t to c o lle c t m o n e y f

r o m in d iv id u a ls w h o h a d b o u g h t d ru g s f r o m h im p rev i o u sl y. Id . at8 2 5 . T h e d i stri ctco u rtth ere reject ed th i s arg u m en tb ecau se d i f f e r e n tc r i m e s we r e i n v o l v e d o n d i f f e r e n td a y s a g a i n s td i f

f e r e n tv i c t i m s , a n d we h e ld th a t w e c o u ld n o t s a y th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n c lu s io n w a s c le a r ly e rr one ous . I d. a t826. R e ga r di ng the e f

f e c tof the us e of

as i ngl e s t a t e s e nt e nc i ng s c or e s he e ton the qu es t i on of w hether predi ca t e off ense s w er e c on sol i dat ed, a F l ori da st at e c ou rthas h e ld th a t “[ a ] tr ia l c o u r ts e rr s in f a ilin g to u s e as in g le s c o r e s h e e t f o re a c h s e p a r a te c a s e f orw hi c h s e nt e nc i ng i s pe ndi ng, notw i ths t a ndi ng tha tthe of f e ns e s a r e t oo10

unr e l a t e d t o a l l ow c ons ol i da t i on orj oi nde ra ttr i a l . ” H a rr i s v. S t a t e , 619 S o. 2d 1043, 1044 ( F l a . 4th D C A 1993) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ; G a l l a ghe rv. S t a t e , 476 S o. 2d 754, 75 6 (F l a. 5th D C A 19 85 ) ( re qu i ri ng the se nt enci ng court“ t o ass ure thatal l of a defe nd ant ’ s c as es pend i ng for s ent enci ng i n a part i cul arcoun ty a tthe t i m e of that de f e nda nt ’ s f

i r s ts e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng a r e di s pos e d of us i ng one s c or e s he e t , ” a nd, a c c o r d in g ly , p e n d in g c a s e s m u s t b e a d m in is tr a tiv e ly tr a n s f e rr e d to as in g le s e n te n c in g ju d g e ) . S u c h “jo in t s e n te n c in g f o ra d m in is tr a tiv e c o n v e n ie n c e ,” how e ve r , doe s notne c e s s a r i l y r e nde rc onvi c t i ons c ons ol i da t e d f ors e nt e nc i ng w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

th e c o m m e n ta ry to § 4 A 1 .2 . S e e S m ith , 3 8 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 6 . R e g a r d i n g wh e th e rp r e d i c a t e o f f e n s e s we r e “ f

u n c t i o n a l l y c o n s o l i d a t e d , ” we h e ld in H e rn a n d e z - M a r tin e z th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin d e c lin in g to appl y thi s c onc e pt , e ve n though the de f e nda ntr e c e i ve d c onc urr e nts e nt e nc e s a nd w as sen t en ced o n th e sam e d ay an d b y th e sam e j u d g e fo r h i s p red i cat e o ffen ses, w he n the s e pr e di c a t e of f e ns e s w e r e a s s i gne d di f f e r e ntdoc ke tnum be r s , the de f e nda ntr e c e i ve d s e pa r a t e j udgm e nt s f ore a c h pr e di c a t e of

f e ns e , a nd the defe nd antw as re pres ent ed by tw o d i ff er entatt orneys atthe se nt enci ng of ea ch pr e di c a t e of

f e ns e . 382 F . 3d a t1306- 1308. W e l i ke w i s e he l d i n S m i th tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f

in d in g th a t th is c o n c e p t w a s n o t ap p lic ab le w a s n o t c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s , e v e n th o u g h th e d e f e n d a n tr e c e i v e d c o n c u rr e n ts e n t e n c e s o n th e s a me11

day, by the sa m e j ud ge, and w hi l e bei ng re pres ent ed by the sa m e a tt orney, w hen the pr e di c a t e of

f e ns e s w e r e a s s i gne d di f f e r e ntdoc ke tnum be r s a nd the de f e nda nt r e c e iv e d s e p a r a te ju d g m e n ts f o re a c h p r e d ic a te o f

f e n s e . 3 8 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 4 6 . A s a n in itia l m a tte r , it is n o t d is p u te d th a t W a ts o n w a s a t le a s t 1 8 y e a r s o ld w hen h e c om m i tt ed the i nst antoffe nse, thatthe i nst antoffe nse i s acontrol l ed subst ance vi ol at i on , and thatthe predi ca t e off ense s w er e c ri m es of vi ol ence . S ee U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 1(a) . R ather, the i ss ue i s w hether W at son h as on e or three pr e di c a t e of

f e ns e s . I ti s notdi s put e d tha tthe i nc i de nt s gi vi ng r i s e t o the pr i or c onvi c t i ons w e r e nots e pa r a t e d by i nt e rve ni ng a rr e s t s a nd di d notoc c uron the s a m e oc c a s i on ortha tthe F l or i dac our tdi d noti s s ue af orm a l or de rof c ons ol i da t i on. S e e U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 2, c m t . n. 3. A c c or di ngl y , the r e l e va nt que s t i ons a r e w he the rW a t s on’ s pr e di c a t e of f e ns e s w e r e pa r tof

as i nge c om m on s c h e m e o rp la n o rf

u n c tio n a lly c o n s o lid a te d . S e e id . A f e rc a r e f ul r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, w e hol d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d not c l e a r l y e rri n c ount i ng W a t s on’ s pr e di c a t e of f e ns e s s e pa r a t e l y . S e e S m i th, 385 F . 3d a t1344. T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tW a t s on’ s pr e di c a t e of f e ns e s di d not a r i s e f r om i nc i de nt s tha tw e r e pa r tof as i ngl e c om m on s c he m e orpl a n. W a t s on a r gue s t o the c ontr a ry tha thi s pr e di c a t e of f e ns e s s t e m m e d f

r om as e r i e s of a lte r c a tio n s b e tw e e n h im s e lf a n d h is e x - g ir lf

r ie n d ’s f a m ily a n d f

r ie n d s . W e12

p r e v io u s ly h a v e r e

je c te d as im ila ra r g u m e n t w h e r e th e d e f e n d a n t a s s e r te d th a t h is pr e di c a t e of

f e ns e s s t e m m e d f

r om as e r i e s of

a l t e r c a t i ons be tw e e n hi m s e l f a nd p eo p le w h o o w ed h im d ru g m o n ey . S ee V eteto , 9 2 0 F .2 d at 8 2 5 . In fa ct, W atso n ’s br i e f c ont e nds tha ti tw a s hi s vi c t i m s , a nd notW a t s on, tha tor c he s tr a t e d ac om m on s c he m e ( i n a n a tt e m ptt o di s c r e di thi m ) . T hus , the r e i s nothi ng t o s ugge s ttha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f

in d in g w a s c le a re rr o r . S e e S m ith , 3 8 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 4 . A l s o, the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tW a t s on’ s pr i orc onvi c t i ons w e r e not f u n c tio n a lly c o n s o lid a te d . I n b o th H e rn a n d e z - M a r tin e z a n d S m ith , w e u p h e ld si m i l arconcl usi on s w hen p re di ca t e off ense s w er e r ef

l ec t ed by di ff

er entdo cket nu m bers and i n separ at e j ud gm ent s, as here . S ee H ernand ez -M art i nez, 38 2 F . 3d at 1306- 08; S m i th, 385 F . 3d a t1343, 1346. I n both of thos e c a s e s , w e w e r e not s w a y e d b y th e f

a c t s th a tth e d e f

e n d a n t s r e c e i v e d c o n c u rr e n ts e n t e n c e s b y th e s a me ju d g e a n d o n th e s a m e d a y to h o ld th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g w a s c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s . I d . A d d itio n a lly , th e f a c t th a t W a ts o n w a s s e n te n c e d u s in g as in g le st at e s ent enci ng sc ores heet , al on e, do es no tconv i nce us. S ee H arri s, 61 9 S o. 2d at 10 44 ; S m i th, 38 5 F . 3d at13 46 . T hu s, there i s nothi ng t o sug gestthatthe di stri ct c o u r t’s f in d in g w a s c le a re rr o r . S e e S m ith , 3 8 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 4 .

I I I . CONCL US I ON W e hol d thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y e rri n cou nt i ng W at son’ s three13

predi ca t e off

ense s s epar at el y. T here fore , w e a ff i rm W at son’ s r ec ei ptof a § 4 B 1 .1 ( b ) e n h a n c e m e n t a n d h is s e n te n c e o f 1 2 0 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t. AF F I RME D.