United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Argued April 22, 2008

Decided June 23, 2008

Before

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No.  07‐2906

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

TYREE POLLARD,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of

Wisconsin.

No. 07‐CR‐009‐001

J.P. Stadtmueller,

Judge.

O R D E R

Tyree Pollard, a convicted felon, was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment under the

Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) for possessing a weapon.  On appeal, Pollard argues

that the district court should not have applied the ACCA in his case.  But because we have

previously rejected the type of arguments Pollard is pressing and because he makes them

here only to preserve his right to seek review in the Supreme Court, we affirm his sentence.

Kenosha County police officers found ten baggies of marijuana, drug paraphernalia,

ammunition, and a gun in Pollard’s apartment.  Pollard admitted that he owned the gun

and the marijuana, and the police took him into custody.  Because Pollard had two prior

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 07‐2906 Page 2

state‐court convictions for delivering cocaine and one prior conviction for possessing and

intending to distribute cocaine, the government charged him with unlawfully possessing a

firearm despite his felon status in addition to possession of marijuana with intent to

distribute.  

Pollard pleaded guilty to the firearm offense in exchange for the government’s

promise to drop the drug charge.  As part of the plea agreement, the government warned

Pollard that his previous drug convictions would likely subject him to enhanced sentencing

penalties under the ACCA and agreed that Pollard could reserve the right to challenge the

enhancement.  At sentencing, Pollard did object to the ACCA’s application, arguing that

because his prior convictions all resulted from a single prosecution, those convictions did

not comprise three separate crimes occurring on different occasions as required by the

ACCA.  Pollard also argued that the ACCA’s sentencing enhancement, which increased his

sentence beyond the statutory maximum, violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights

because the judge, not a jury, decided the facts relating to his criminal history and because

the judge did so using a standard of the preponderance of the evidence instead of beyond a

reasonable doubt.  The district court rejected both arguments, however, and sentenced

Pollard to 15 years’ imprisonment, the minimum required under the ACCA.

On appeal, Pollard again challenges his sentence enhancement under the ACCA.

The ACCA establishes a minimum 15‐year sentence for felons caught with guns who have

at least three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses.  See 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(e)(1).  We review de novo the district court’s application of the ACCA to Pollard’s

sentence.  See United States v. Cardenas, 217 F.3d 491, 492 (7th Cir. 2000).  We have squarely

rejected both of Pollard’s challenges before, however, and Pollard acknowledges that he

makes those challenges only to preserve them for review in the Supreme Court.

Pollard first renews his objection to the district court’s conclusion that his three state

convictions warranted a sentencing enhancement under the ACCA.  Pollard correctly

observes that the ACCA applies only when the defendant has committed three prior crimes

“on occasions different from one another.”  18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).  He argues that his

previous drug convictions should not count for purposes of the ACCA because they all

arose from a single prosecution and therefore did not occur on separate occasions.  But well‐

settled circuit law compels the opposite conclusion.  

We have joined most of our sister circuits in holding that prior offenses committed in

rapid succession count as individual offenses under the ACCA if each offense arose from a

“separate and distinct criminal episode.”  See United States v. Hudspeth, 42 F.3d 1015, 1019

(7th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (collecting cases).  Pollard contends that the ACCA was not meant

to encompass multiple offenses prosecuted and sentenced together, and he invites this court
No. 07‐2906 Page 3

to revisit the Hudspeth standard. But whether predicate offenses under the ACCA were

prosecuted at the same time is irrelevant.  What matters is whether the underlying

offenses occurred simultaneously or sequentially, thus permitting the defendant to abandon

the criminal enterprise before moving on to the next crime.  See Hudspeth, 42 F.3d at 1021

(holding that defendant’s three burglaries over a 30‐minute period counted as separate

convictions under the ACCA); see also United States v. Morris, 293 F.3d 1010, 1014 (7th Cir.

2002) (holding that defendant’s two shootings, although close in time and proximity, were

distinct criminal episodes under the ACCA); Cardenas, 217 F.3d at 492 (holding that two

sales of crack separated by 45 minutes and one city block were separate offenses under the

ACCA).  Pollard’s case is not even a close call: although he committed all three drug

offenses at his home, they were not at all temporally close, occurring on February 6, May 2,

and May 21 of 2002.  They clearly constituted “separate and distinct criminal episodes,”

giving Pollard ample time to cease his criminal conduct between offenses.  See Hudspeth, 42

F.3d at 1021.  Pollard’s first challenge to the ACCA must therefore fail.  

Pollard’s second challenge, as he recognizes, is similarly doomed under current law.

He argues that, in light of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the district court’s fact‐

finding regarding his criminal history violates the Fifth Amendment’s “beyond a reasonable

doubt” standard and his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.  See United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).  However, the

contrary rule established by Almendarez‐Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226‐27 (1998),

which held that the existence of a prior conviction need not be proven to a jury but rather

may be determined by the judge at sentencing, is still good law.  Although we have

questioned the validity of the Almendarez‐Torres rule after Apprendi and Booker, see United

States v. Browning, 436 F.3d 780, 782 (7th Cir. 2006), that issue can only be answered by the

Supreme Court, see id.  We have repeatedly rejected this argument, and until the Supreme

Court overrules Almendarez‐Torres, it can fare no better here.  See, e.g., United States v.

Hendrix, 509 F.3d 362, 375 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Stevens, 453 F.3d 963, 967 (7th Cir.

2006); United States v. Williams, 410 F.3d 397, 402 (7th Cir. 2005).   

AFFIRMED.