_____________ No. 95-2730EM

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * Richard L. Neal, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: March 6, 1996 Filed: March 11, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Ri chardL. Neal challenges the career-offender sentence imposed by the distri ct court after he pleaded guilty to possessing at least 10 0 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a)(1). We affirm.
In determining Neal's criminal history category, the presentenc e report assigned a total of twelve criminal histo ry points for four Indiana state law convictions, for which Neal received c oncurrent sentences. Neal objected to the presentence report because the o ffenses were "consolidated by a plea agreement f or sentencing," were not separated by an intervening arrest, and were thus "related" within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 , comment. (n.3). Neal contended he should have been assessed a total of si x criminal history points for these offenses. At sentencing, Neal testified he entered into one plea

### -2-

agreement that encompassed all of the Indiana offenses. Neal stated he di d not know why he was sentenced by two different judges. The governmen t maintained the offenses were not consolidated fo r sentencing because there were t wo different sentencing proceedings in front of different judges . The district court overruled Neal's objection, and sentenced him to 18 8 months imprisonment and four years supervised re lease. For reversal, Neal argues the plea agreement was "tantamount to an order of consolidation," and the district court thus miscalculated his criminal history. W e disagree. The Sentencing Guidelines provide: "Prior sentences imposed i n unrela tedcases are to be counted separately," while "[p]rior sentence s imposedin related cases are to be treated as one sentence." U.S.S.G . § 4A1.2(a)(2). As relevant here, earlier sentences are related "if they re sulted from offenses that . . . were consolidated for trial o r sentencing." U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3). We review de novo th e district court's "decision regarding the legal interpretation of section 4A1.2(a)(2)," United States v. Watson , 952 F.2d 982, 990 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 503 U.S. 994 (1992), and review fo r clear error the district court's "determinations with respect to the offe nses in a criminal history computation," United states v. Lowe , 930 F.2d 64 5, 646-47 (8th Cir. 1991).
It is well-settled in this circuit that "two or more sentence s imp osedat the same time 'are not related for purposes of U.S.S.G . § 4A1.2(a)(2) if the cases proceeded to sentencing under separate docket numbers and there was no formal order of consolidation.'" United States v. Klein , 13 F.3d 1182, 1185 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. McComber , 996 F.2d 946, 947 (8t h Cir. 1993) (per curiam)), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 2722 (1994); accord United States v. Lewchuk , 958 F.2d 246, 247 (8th Cir. 1992). Here, the record does not include copies of the judgments

### -3-

entered for Neal's In diana convictions. Although the caption of the plea agreement bears one docket number, the number is the same docket numbe r assignedto another of Neal's offenses for which he received a one-yea r sentence to run concurrently with the other sentences at issue here, and the pl ea agreement references each individual offense by its assigne d docket n umber. As in Klein , McComber , and Lewchuk , Neal's earlie r concur rent sentences were the result of different offenses committed a t different times and in different places, and were imposed on differen t days. Neal does not assert a formal order of consolidation was entered. We thu s conclude the district court properly treated Neal's earlie r sentences as unrelated for purposes of section 4A1.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.