P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31046 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. M AR I O KJ OHNS ON D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he M i ddl e D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 3: 07- C R
- 17- 1 B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z Aan d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * M ar i o K . J oh n son app e al s t he 2 10 - m o nt h s e nt e nc e o f i m pr i s o nm e nt i m posedf

ol l ow i n g h i s pl ea of

gu i l t y t o one coun tof di st ribu t i on of

f ive gram s or m o r e of co c ai ne bas e . Jo hns o n ar gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y i m po s i ng acare er offen d er en h a n cem en t pu rsu a n t to U . S . S . G . § 4B 1 . 1 . A ccord i n g to Joh n son, t h e sentences f or t h e t w o pri or L ou i si an a dru g of fen ses w h i ch f

orm ed th e b a sis for t h e e n h a n c em en t sh ou l dn ot h a ve be en treate das se p a ra te United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 8, 20 09 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 31046

2 sentences becau se t h ey w ere f u n ct i on al l y consol i da t ed. A s John son conced es, becau se he di d n otob j ectto the en h an cem en tin the d i st ri ctcourt , revi ew i s f or p la in e r r o r . Uni t e d St at e s v . Campo s - Maldo nado , 53 1 F . 3 d33 7 , 33 9 -40 ( 5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 3 2 8 (2 0 0 8 ). E ven if Joh n son h adobj ect ed to t h e e n h an cem en t , t h ere w as no error. U n der t h e pl ai n l an gu age of t h e current versi on of § 4A 1. 2( a) ( 2) , pri or s en t en ces
“ ar e a l w ays c ount ed se par at ely if t he s ent enc es w er e i m pos ed f orof fens es t hat w e r e s e pa r at e d b y an i nt e rve ni ng ar r e s t(i . e . , t he de fe nda nti s ar r e s t e d f o rt he f i r s to f fe ns e pr i o rt o c o m m i t t i ng t he s e c o nd o f fe ns e . ” I f

t he r e w as no i nt e rve ni ng arrest , t h e sentences are sti l lt reat ed sepa rat el y u n l ess ( 1) t h ey resul t ed f rom of fen ses cha rged i n t h e sam e i n st rum en t , or ( 2) t h e sentences w ere i m posedon t he s am e da y. § 4A1. 2( a) ( 2) . I ti s und i s put e d thatJ o hns o n was a r r e s t e d f o rt he f i rstoffen se on Jan u ary 26, 200 6, an d that t h e sec on d of fen se oc curred on F eb ru a ry21 , 20 0 6 . T h u s, th e offen ses w ere sep a ra tedbyan i n terv en i n g a rres t, an d are t reat ed sepa rat el y. I ti s un n ecess ary t o condu ctan y f u rt h er ana l ysi s. Al t ho ughJ o hns o n c o nt e nds t hatac o ur tm us ti nquir e i n t o w he t he rt he pr i o rs e nt e nc e s w e r e f unc t i o nall y c o ns o l i da t e d, cons o l i da t i o n i s no l o nge rt he rel evan tinqu i ry u n der t h e v ersi on of § 4A 1. 2 that app l i es t o hi m . E ven un der t h e pri or ve rsi on , how ever, of fen ses separated by a n i n t ervening arrestw ere tr e a te ds e p a r a te ly , a n dc o u r ts lo o k e dt o w h e th e rt h e yw e r e c o n s o lid a te do n lyif th ere w a s n o interv en i n g a rres t. In l i gh tof

t h e f oregoi n g, t h e di st ri ctcourtcom m i t t ed n o err or, pl ai n or o t h e r wi s e . T h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.