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
4-14-2004 

# U S A v . Ro d ge rs 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 . 03-3497

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work 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 . Rod g e r s " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 835. 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_2004/835NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No
. 03-3497
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. ROM ERELL RO DGERS,

Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Crimi nal No. 03-cr -00261) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Garrett E. B rown , Jr.
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

April 2, 2004 Before: ALITO , FISHERand ALDISE RT , Circuit Judges
. (Fil ed April 14, 2004)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT
AL DI SE RT , Circuit

Judge
. This app eal by Rom erell Rodg ers requires us to interp ret the languag e of C omm entary App lication Note 3 to Section 4 A1.2 o f the U nited States Sen tencing G uidelines. M ore specifi call y, we must decide whether the word “offense ” means “conviction.” The2

distr ict co urt d id n ot ac cep t Ap pella nt’s v ersio n. N eithe r do we . W e w ill affirm. Application Note 3 provides: Prior s entences are not c onsider ed related if they were for offense s that we re sep arated by an inte rven ing arr est ( i.e., the defendant is ar rest ed for the fi rst of

fense pri or to committing t he second offense ). Other wise, pr ior se nt en ce s are co ns id er edre late d i f the yre su lt edfr om o ff en se s t ha t ( A) occ urre d onth e s ame o cca si on, (B) wer e part of asi ngl e co mmon s che me or p lan, o r (C ) w ere c ons olid ated for trial o r sen tenc ing
. . . USSG § 4A1.2, Commentary Applicat ion Note 3. If ther e was “an int ervening arrest” between the prior offens es, t he sentenc es for tho se o ffe nse s are not relat ed a nd t her e is n o fu rthe r an alysis. United Stat es v. Hallman , 23 F .3d 82 1, 825 n.3 (3 d C ir. 1994 ) (exp laining that w here th ere is an interve ning arrest, the court m ay not consider alternatives for determin ing wh ether the pair of s entences a re related). The issue comes to us from an inci dent when the Newark Poli ce were conducting a
revers e sti ng operati on, in whic h the offi cers ar rest ed Rodgers and found a si lver . 38 calib er h and gun on R odg ers. R odg ers p lead ed g uilty to a felo n in pos sess ion of a fire arm . Prior to committi ng the ins tant of fense, Rodger s committ ed, and was convi cted for , thr ee sep arate rob ber ies a nd r elate d offen ses. Rodgers argues that t

he dist rict court er red in finding his base offense l evel t o be 24 inst ead of 20. He conte nds that the error was premise d on the court ’s det erminat ion that t hree of hi s prior

convict ions were not

relat ed, so t

hat USSG 2K2.1(a)(2) appl ies instead of U SSG 2K 2.1(a)( 4). Ro dger s con tends that his th ree prio r con viction s sho uld3

have been consi dered rel ated, because they were s entenced at the same t ime and ran concurrent . And, he ar gues that his ar rest s were not “i ntervening” because no “offe nse” had b een a djud icated befo re the n ew arrest. The guidelines define offense as: [T ]he offens e of

con victi on a nd a ll rele van t con duc t un der § 1B 1.3 (Relevant Conduct) unless a different meaning is specified or is otherwise clear f rom the co ntext. T he term “instan t” is use d in co nnec tion w ith “offense, ” “federaloffense, ” or “offense of convict ion,” as the ca se may be, to dis tingui sh the vi olati on for which the defendant i s being se ntenced fr om a prior or sub sequ ent offens e, or fro m an offe nse b efore anoth er cou rt ( e.g., an offe nse befo re a state court invo lving the sam e unde rlying conduct). USSG § 1B1.1. We cannot accept t

he notion t

hat thi s defini tion r egards an “off ense” as synony mous with a “convi ction” as Rodgers sugges ts. For example, such a reading would produce the guideline’s defi niti on of offense t o be “the convi ction of convict ion.” As Ap plica tion No te 3 to US SG § 4A 1.2 explai ns, “offe nses” ar e “separated by an inter vening arr est” when “defendant is ar rest ed for a fi rst of

fense pri or to committing t he second offense. ” It i s bey ond cavil that de fendants are not “arrest ed” for a “convi ction” nor do they commit a “conviction.” Simil arly , a defendant is not convicted for an offense wit hou t bein g fir st arr este d fo r tha t offens e. We have considered a ll cont entions rais ed by t he parti es and concl ude that no fur ther disc uss ion is ne ces sary. The judgment of the dist rict court wil l be affi rmed.