# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 34 54

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Mer wy n L. Lev eri ng ,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

,

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 18 , 20 17

Fil ed : M ay

21 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

In 20 04

, a jury co nv ic te d Mer wy n Lev eri ng of two fir earm s of fen se s: un la wfu l

po ss es si on of a fir earm as a pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d felo n, and un la wfu l po ss es si on of

Thi s op in io n is fil ed by Ju dg e Lok en an d Ju dg e Co ll ot on un de r Eig ht h Ci rcu it *

Ru le 47 E.a st ol en fir earm

. Bas ed on hi s cri m in al hi st or y , th e di st ric t c o u rt en ha nc ed 1

Lev eri ng ’s se nt en ce pu rs ua nt to th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C.

§ 92 4( e), an d USSG § 4B 1.4

. The co ur t la te r va cat ed Lev eri ng ’s se nt en ce un de r 28

U.S.C. § 22 55 in li gh t o f in te rv en in g pr eced en t, bu t ag ai n ap pl ie d th e ACCA

en ha nc em en t at a res en te nc in g. Leveri ng ap pe al s t he ne w sen te nc e, an d we a ffi rm

.

Fo ll owi ng a th ree- da y jury tri al

, Lev eri ng was fo un d gu il ty of po ss es si on of a

fir earm as a pr ev i o u s l y co nv ic te d fel on (Co un t I), se e 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) , 9 24 (e),

an d po ss es si on of a st ol en fir earm (Co u n t II), se e 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( j). The ACCA

es t a bl is he s a m an da to ry m in im um te rm of fif

te en y ears ’ im

pr is on m en t an d a

m ax im um of li fe imp r is on m en t if a de fen da nt is co nv ic te d un de r § 92 2( g) an d ha s

su st ai ne d a t l eas t t hr ee p rev io us co nv ic ti on s fo r a “ vi ol en t fe lo ny .

. . co m m it te d o n

o c c a s i on s di ffer en t fro m on e an ot he r.” 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ). At se nt en ci ng , th e

di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Lev eri ng ha d su st ai ne d at le as t th ree su ch co nv ic ti on s

so th at h e was su bjec t to an en ha nc ed st at ut or y pe na lt y un de r § 92 4( e) an d an

i n c reas ed se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge un de r USSG § 4B 1.4 (b )(3 )(A). The co ur t

i m po se d co nc ur ren t se nt en ces of 26 2 m on th s on Co un t I (at th e bo tt om of t h e

ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge ) an d 1 20 m on th s o n C ou nt II.

The di st ric t co u r t v a cat ed Lev eri ng ’s se nt en ces in 20 15 aft er th e de ci si on in

Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51 (2 01 5)

, whi ch de cl ared un co ns ti tu ti on al th e

“ res id ua l cl au se ” o f § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( ii ). 13 5 S. Ct. at 25 63 . In l ig ht of Jo hn so n , th e

co ur t co nc lu de d t h a t o ne of Lev eri ng ’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s on whi ch th e co ur t ha d

rel ie d at se nt en ci ng —a 20 00 Neb ras ka co nv ic ti on fo r es cap e f r o m of fic ia l

de te nt io n— no lo ng er qu al ifi ed as a vi ol en t fel on y

. At res en te nc in g, h o w e v e r, th e

co ur t det erm in ed th at wit ho ut co ns id eri ng th e es cap e co nv ic ti on , Lev eri ng was st il l

an ar med c aree r cri m in al ba se d on th ree ot he r pr io r co nv ic ti on s: a 19 89 Neb ras ka

The Hon or ab le Lau rie Sm it h Cam p, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.

-2

-co nv ic ti on fo r fir st -d eg ree as sa ul t an d t wo 1 99 4 Io wa co nv ic ti on s fo r as sa ul t wh il e

pa rti ci pa ti ng in a fel on y

. The co ur t t h e n va rie d do wnwar d fro m th e ad vi so ry

gu id el in e ran g e an d se nt en ced Lev eri ng to 24 0 m on th s on Co un t I an d 12 0 m on th s

on Co un t II , to be ser ve d c on cu rren tl y

.

The pr in ci pa l di sp ut e on a p pe al co nc ern s whe th er th e two Io wa as sa ul t

co nv ic ti on s were f

o r vi ol en t fel on ie s “ co m

m it te d on oc cas io ns di ffer en t fro m on e

an ot he r” with in th e m ean in g o f th e ACCA. The co nv ic ti on s ar os e fro m Lev eri ng ’s

hi gh -s pe ed fli gh t fro m la w e nf or cem en t of

fic ers in a st ol en au to m ob il e o n J un e 1 3,

1 9 9 4. On th at da te

, Lev eri ng dr ov e a ve hi cl e th ro ug h Po lk

, Dall as , an d Ada ir

co un ti es in Io wa, weav ed in an d ou t of tra ffi c, ran hi s ve hi cl e in to a pu rs ui ng po li ce

car, an d fo rced ot he r ve hi cl es off th e ro ad . Lever in g was ch arg ed an d co nv ic te d o f

as sa ul ts in al l th ree co un ti es

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e co nv ic ti on s fro m

Dall as Co un ty an d Ada ir Co un ty were fo r vi ol en t fel on ie s t h at were co m m it te d on

di ffer en t oc cas io ns , an d co un te d th em bo th as pr ed ic at e of fen se s fo r pu rp os es of th e

ACCA.

Lev eri ng arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in m ak in g th at de te rm in at io n. He

c on te nd s th at al l of hi s as sa ul ts on Ju ne 13

, 19 94

, oc cu rred on a si ng le “o c c a s i o n ”

whi le he fle d fro m la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers in a hi gh -s pe ed ch as e acro ss th ree Io wa

co un ti es

. W e m

us t de te rm in e, th eref

or e, whe th er Lev eri ng co m m it te d th e two Io wa

as sa ul ts in Dall as Co un ty a n d Ada ir Co un ty on “ oc cas io ns di ffer en t fro m on e

an ot he r.”

As we ex pl ai ne d i n Uni te d S ta te s v. Dav id so n , 5 27 F.3 d 70 3 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ),

va ca te d i n pa rt on ot he r gr ou nd s by 55 1 F.3 d 80 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), an d rep eat he re,

th e st at ut or y pr ov is io n at is su e ha s it s ge ne si s in a de ci si on of th is co ur t. Id

. at 70 7-

08

. In Uni te d St at es v. Pett y , 79 8 F.2 d 11 57 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ), va ca te d

, 48 1 U.S. 10 34
(1 98 7)

, th is co ur t he ld th at a de fen da nt was su bjec t to an en ha nc ed se nt en ce un de r 18

U.S.C. § 12 02 (a)( 1) (Su pp

. 19 8 4 )

, ba se d on “ th ree pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s

. . . fo r

-3

-ro bb ery or bu rg la ry ,” whe n he was “ co nv ic te d in a si ng le in di ct m en t of si x co un ts of

ro bb ery st em m in g fro m an in ci de nt du rin g whi ch he ro bb ed si x di ffer en t pe op le in a

res ta ur an t si m

ul ta ne ou sl y .” 79 8 F .2d at 1 15 9- 60 . W he n P et ty pet it io ne d fo r a wri t

of cert io rari

, th e So li ci to r Gen eral co nf es se d erro r, no ti ng th at “ th e le gi sl at iv e hi st or y

st ro ng ly su pp or ts th e co nc lu si on th at th e st at ut e was in te nd ed to reac h m ul ti pl e

cri m in al ep is od es th at were d is ti nc t i n t im e, no t m ul ti pl e fel on y

co nv ic ti on s ar is in g

ou t of a si n g l e cri m in al ep is od e.” Uni te d St at es v. Pett y , 82 8 F.2 d 2, 3 (8 th Ci r.

19 87 ). The Su pr em e Co ur t r e man d e d th e cas e to th is co ur t fo r reco ns id erat io n in

li gh t of th e So li ci to r Gen eral ’s po si ti on , Pett y , 48 1 U

. S

. a t 1 0 34

, an d th is co ur t

rem an de d t he cas e fo r res en te nc in g. Pett y , 82 8 F .2d at 3

.

The fo ll owi ng y ear, Co ng res s am en de d th e st at ut e to ad d th e req ui rem en t th at

a de fen da nt m

us t ha ve su st ai ne d th ree co nv ic ti on s “ on oc cas io ns di ffer en t fro m on e

an ot he r” to qu al ify as an arm ed care er cri m in al

. Sen at or Bi de n, th en th e ch ai r of th e

Sen at e Ju di ci ary Co m

m it te e, ex pl ai ne d hi s vi ew th at “ a si ng le m ul ti -co un t co nv ic ti on

co ul d st il l qu al ify whe re t h e c ou nt s rel at ed to cri m es co m m it te d on di ffer en t

oc cas io ns , bu t a ro bb ery of m ul ti pl e vi ct im s si m

ul ta ne ou sl y (as in Pet ty) wou ld co un t

as on ly one co nv ic ti on .” 13 4 C on g. Re c. S1 73 60 -0 2 (No v. 1 0, 1 98 8)

.

Si nc e th en , co ur ts pr es en te d wit h m ul ti pl e co nv ic ti on s fo r fel on ie s co m m it te d

on a si ng le da y ha ve st riv en to de te rm in e wha t is a se pa rat e “ oc cas io n.” W e ha ve sa id

th at of fen se s occ ur on di ffer en t oc cas io ns if th ey are “ se pa rat e an d di st in ct cri m in al

ep is od es th at di d n ot res ul t fro m a co nt in uo us co ur se of co nd uc t.” Uni te d S ta te s v.

Hamel l

, 3 F.3 d 11 87

, 11 91 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Der oo , 30 4 F.3 d

82 4, 82 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). Bu t th is rep hr as in g rai se s m or e qu es ti on s : Wh a t is an

“ ep is od e,” an d wh at is a “ co nt in uo us co ur se of c on du ct ? ”

W e kn ow t h a t t he Pett

y si tu at io n— si x ro bb eri es in a res ta ur an t at th e sa m e

ti m e—i s on e ep is od e, a co nt in uo us co ur se of co nd uc t, an d a si ng le “ oc cas io n.” W e

ha ve al so co nc lu de d th at two co nv ic ti on s fo r dr ug sa le s to two cu st om ers in th e sa m e

-4

-ro om se co nd s ap art co un te d as on ly on e pr io r co nv ic ti on un de r th e ACCA, be cau se

th e of fen se s were “ co m

m it te d, in es se n c e , si m

ul ta ne ou sl y .” Uni te d St at es v.

W il lo ug hb y , 65 3 F.3 d 73 8, 74 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Bu t ev en whe n an of fen de r se ts ou t

to co m m it m ul ti pl e vi ol en t fel on ie s on a s i n g l e da y , he can su st ai n m or e th an on e

qu al ifyin g co nv ic ti on

. In Der oo , we he ld th at th r e e bu rg la rie s on on e ni gh t were

di st in ct oc cas io ns whe re th e de fen da nt bu rg la riz ed th ree cab in s wit h di ffer en t own ers

on di ffer en t la ke s. 30 4 F.3 d at 82 8. We o b se rv ed th at th e bu rg la rie s oc cu rred in

th ree se pa rat e pl aces an d in vo lv ed th ree se pa rat e vi ct im s. Id

. Uni te d St at es v. Gra y , 85 F.3 d 38 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ), si m il arl y he ld th at bu rg la rie s of two ho m es lo cat ed ve ry

cl os e to each ot he r wit hi n twen ty-fiv e m in ut es were co m m it te d on se pa rat e oc ca sio ns.

Id . at 3 81

.

In Hamel l

, we he ld th at two as sa u l t s w e r e co m m it te d on di ffer en t oc cas io ns

whe re th e de f

e n d a nt st ab be d on e vi ct im wit h a kn ife in si de a ta ve rn , an d sh ot at

an ot he r vi ct im twen ty-fi v e m in ut es la te r aft er th at vi ct im cal le d th e po li ce an d

ap pr oa ch ed th e de fen da nt ’s gi rlf rie nd

. 3 F.3 d at 11 9 1

. We ex pl ai ne d th at th e

“ as sa ul ts ha pp en ed at di ffer en t ti m es an d pl aces an d ha d di ffer en t m ot iv at io ns .” Id

. Uni te d St at es v. Hump hr ey , 75 9 F.3 d 90 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), li ke wis e co nc lu de d th at a

de fen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on s fo r fir st -d eg re e as sa ult an d fi rs t- de gr ee ro bbe ry w ere se pa rat e

pr ed ic at e of

fen se s whe re th e two of

fen se s were co m

m it te d fif te en m in ut es an d th ree

bl oc ks ap art ag ai ns t di ffer en t vi ct im s. Id

. at 91 1- 12

. Sy nt he si zi ng ou r de ci si on s, th e

co ur t in W ill ough by ob se rv ed th at im po rta nt co ns id erat io ns in th e in qu iry in cl ud e “ the

ti m e la ps e be twee n of

fen se s,” “ th e ph y si cal di st an ce be twee n th ei r oc cu rren ce,” an d

“ th ei r la ck of ov eral l su bs ta nt iv e co nt in ui ty, a fact or th at is of te n de m on st rat ed in th e

vi ol en t-f el on y co nt ex t by di ffer en t vi ct im s or di ffer en t ag gr es si on s.” 65 3 F.3 d at 74 3.

In Le v e r i n g ’s cas e, th e ch arg in g do cu m en ts fro m th e Io wa cri m in al cas es

es ta bl is h th at he co m

m it te d th e as sa ul ts in two di ffer en t co un t i e s a t di ffer en t ti m es

ag ai ns t di ffer en t vi ct im s. One as sa ul t oc cu rred i n Dall as Co un ty, “ jus t wes t of th e

W es t Des Mo in es ci ty li m it s,” a n d th e ot he r in Ada ir Co un ty, “ [a]s th e ve hi cl e

-5

-tra ve le d west [o n Int ers ta te 80 ] in th e eas tb ou nd lan e.” In Dall as Co un ty, Lev eri ng

dr ov e hi s ve hi cl e in to a car dr iv en by a pu rs ui ng po l i c e o f f i c e r a nd ran hi m of

f th e

ro ad ; in Ada ir Co un ty, Lev eri ng fo rced nu m ero us ve hi cl es, inc lu di ng se m i-t ru ck s, of f

th e ro ad

. 2

Lev eri ng ac kno wled ge s al l of th is

, bu t he m ai nt ai ns th at th e two as sa ul ts sh ou ld

co un t as on ly one pre di cat e o ffen se be cau se th ey were p art of a “ co nt in uo us co ur se

of co nd uc t” —n am el y , hi s fli gh t from po li ce. Lev eri ng arg ue s th at hi s as sa ul ts

, li ke

th e dr ug sa le s in W

il lo ug hb y , were no t “s e p a rat e an d di st in ct cri m in al ep is od es ”

be c a u se th ey sh ared th e sa m e m ot iv at io n— ev ad in g arre st —an d were co m m it te d

wit ho ut an y in te r v e n i n g pe rio d of rep os e th at m ig ht ha ve pr ov id ed Lev eri ng an

op po rtu ni ty to ce as e h is cri m in al act iv it y

.

W e reject Lev eri ng ’s arg um en t as in co ns is te nt wit h th e th ru st of ou r pr eced en t.

Alt ho ug h th e ph ras e “ co nt in uo us co ur se of co nd uc t” ap pe ars in ou r cas e s o n th is

Se ve ra l ci rc uit s ha ve co nc lu de d th at a se nt en ci ng co ur t de ci di ng the oc ca sio ns- 2

di ffer en t qu es ti on is li m it ed t o c o n s ul ti ng jud ic ia l reco rd s of th e type de sc rib ed in
Sh ep ar d v. Uni te d St at es , 54 4 U.S. 13

, 26 (2 0 0 5 )

. S e e Uni te d St at es v. Ki ng , 85 3

F.3 d 26 7, 27 0- 75 (6 th Ci r. 20 17 ); Uni te d St at es v. Dan tz le r , 77 1 F.3 d 13 7, 14 3- 46 (2 d
Ci r. 20 14 ); Ki rk

la nd v. Uni te d St at es , 68 7 F.3d 87 8, 88 3- 87 (7 th Ci r. 20 12 ); Uni te d

St at es v. Sn eed

, 60 0 F.3 d 13 26

, 13 30 -3 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ); Uni te d St at es v

. Ta yl or , 41 3 F.3 d 11 46

, 11 56 -5 8 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 05 ); Uni te d St at es v. Th omp so n , 42 1 F.3 d 27 8,

28 1- 86 (4 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Thi s co ur t in Uni te d St at es v. Boy le s , 23 5 F.3 d 10 57 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (p er c u r i a m), s ai d th at Ta yl or v. Uni te d St at es , 49 5 U.S. 57 5 (1 99 0)

, di d no t
li m it th e ev id en ce th at a se nt en ci ng co ur t m ay co ns id er, bu t Boy le s rel ie d on de ci si on s fro m th e Si xt h an d Sev en th Ci rcu it s th at were la te r ab ro ga te d by Sh ep ar d

. 23 5 F.3 d

a t 10 57

. W e ha ve no t ad dr es se d th e qu es ti on di rect ly in a pu bl is he d op in io n s i n c e Sh ep ar d

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Mel bi e , 75 1 F.3 d 58 6, 58 8 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (p art ie s waiv e d a n y ob

jecti on ); Uni te d St at es v. Kei th

, 63 8 F.3 d 85 1, 85 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) ( Sh ep ar d -ap pr ov ed m at eri al s su ffi ci en t to res ol ve di sp ut e). Lim it in g ou r rev ie w to
th e Sh ep ar d m at eri al s wou ld no t affe ct th e ou tc om e he re, so we ta ke th e co ns erv at iv e

ap pr oa ch by con su lt in g o nl y th e ch arg in g d oc um en ts an d ju dg m en ts

.

-6

-su bjec t, it ha s pr ov ed un he lp fu l to th e an al y si s. A bu rg la r on a on e-n ig ht cri m e sp ree

en ga ge s in a “ co nt in uo us co ur se of co nd uc t,” in th e or di na ry se ns e of th e ph ras e, as

he m ov es fro m ho m e to ho m e st eal in g p ro pe rty with in a sh or t p eri od . Yet we h av e

he ld th at m

ul ti pl e bu rg la rie s wit hi n an ho ur as pa rt of a si ng le pl an are co m m it te d on

di ffer en t oc cas io ns be cau se th ey in vo lv e di ffer en t ti m es , lo cat io ns , an d vi ct im s.

Der oo , 30 4 F .3d at 8 27 -2 8; Gra y , 85 F.3d at 3 81

.

Lev eri ng is co rrec t th at a fin di ng of “ di ffer en t m ot iv at io ns ” fo r mult ip le

of fen se s can su pp or t a de te rm in at io n of di ffer en t oc cas io ns , Hamel l

, 3 F.3 d at 11 91

, bu t a ch an ge in pu rp os e is no t a ne ces sa ry co nd it io n. A se ri al bu rg la r pr es um ab ly

act s wit h a si ng le m ot iv at io n to ga th er st ol en pr op ert y , bu t hi s m ul ti pl e bu rg la rie s on

a si ng le ni gh t oc cu r on di ffer en t oc cas io ns

. And whi le we ha ve rel ie d on “a

di sc ern ab le pa us e in act iv it y ” be twee n of fen se s to s u p p o r t a de te rm in at io n of

di ffer en t oc cas io ns , Dav id so n , 52 7 F.3 d at 71 0, th e pr im ary si gn ifi can ce of th e pa us e

is th e ch an ce to di sc on ti nu e cri m in al act iv it y —an op po rtu ni ty t ha t is no t pr es en t in

th e cas e of si m

ul ta ne ou s of

fen se s li ke th e res ta ur an t ro bb ery in Pett y or th e du al dr ug

sa le in W il lo ug hb y

. Lev eri ng ’s hi gh -s pe ed fli gh t m ig ht no t ha ve faci li ta te d cal m

refl e c t i o n , b u t th e le ng th of th e pu rs ui t un do ub te dl y ga ve hi m an op po rtu ni ty “ to

ceas e an d de si st fro m f

u r th er cri m in al act iv it y ,” id

. , by di sc on ti nu in g th e ch as e or

m ak in g a co ns ci ou s ch oi ce to av oi d as sa ul ti ng ot he r dr iv ers who m he en co un te red on

th e ro ad

. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Will ia ms , 18 7 F .3d 42 9, 4 31 (4t h C ir. 1 99 9)

.

W e res pe ct fu ll y di ffer wit h th e br oa d st at em en t in two un pu bl is he d op in io ns

fro m th e Si xt h C irc ui t th at “ [g ]enera ll y whe n a pe rs on is ev ad in g o r res is ti ng arre st

im m ed ia te ly fo ll owi ng th e act io ns gi vi ng ris e to th e a r r e s t

, su bs eq ue nt of fen se s

ari si ng ou t of th e ev as io n or res is ta nc e are pa rt of th e sa m e cri m in al ep is od e.” Uni te d

St at es v. Cl ar k

, 5 9 1 F

. App ’x 36 7, 37 6 (6 th Ci r. 20 14 ); se e Uni te d St at es v. Man n , 55 2 F. App ’x 46 4, 4 70 (6t h C ir. 2 01 4) . Thes e n on pr eced en ti al de ci si on s pu rp or te d

to de riv e th e qu ot ed pr op os it io n fro m Uni te d St at es v. Gra ves , 60 F.3 d 11 83 (6 th Ci r.

19 95 ), se e Man n , 55 2 F. App ’x at 47 0, bu t th ey ex te nd ed Gra ves in a si gn ifi can t way

-7

-wit ho ut co nv in ci ng ex pl an at io n. Gra ves in vo lv ed a bu rg la ry an d an as sa ul t th at was

co m m it te d whi le res is ti ng arre st fo r t h e bu rg la ry

. The pe rp et rat or “ was st il l at th e

lo cat io n of th e bu rg la ry whe n he was ch as ed by th e po li ce an d po in te d th e gu n at th e

of fic er.” 60 F.3 d at 11 87

. The co m m on l o c a t i o n f

o r bo th of

fen se s le d th e Gra ves

c ou rt to fin d th e si tu at io n “ m or e cl os el y an al og ou s to Pett y whe re th e de f

e n d a n t

si m ul ta ne ou sl y ro bb ed m

ul ti pl e vi ct im s.” Id

. Bu t Gra ves it se lf was rejecte d by th e

Fo ur th Ci rcu it in Uni te d St at es v. Lees on , 45 3 F .3d 63 1, 6 43 n.5 (4 th Ci r. 20 06 ), so

Cl ar k an d Man n ris e fro m a sh ak y fo un da ti on

. And wha te ve r th e m eri t of Gra ves an d

it s co nc lu si on ab ou t of

fen se s co m

m it te d in a si ng le lo cat io n, it s rat io na l e do es no t

di ct at e th at al l act iv it y un de rta ke n whi le res is ti ng or ev ad in g arre st at di ffer en t pl aces

an d a t d iff

eren t t im es oc cu rs on a si ng le “ oc cas io n.”

Lev eri ng co m

m it te d two as sa ul ts o n t h e sa m e da te bu t at di ffer en t ti m es in

di ffer en t co un ti es ag ai ns t di ffer en t vi ct im s. W e co nc lu de th at Lev eri ng ’s as sa ul ts in

Dall as an d Ada ir co un ti es were “ co m m it te d on oc cas io ns di ffer en t fro m on e an ot he r”

an d qu al ify as se pa rat e pr ed ic at e of fen se s un de r § 92 4( e)

. Th e d i s t ric t co ur t th us

pr op erl y en ha nc ed Lev eri ng ’s se nt en ce un de r th e AC C A a n d th e co rres po nd in g

se nt en ci ng gu id el in e.

Lev e r i n g al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le se nt en ce un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). He co nt en ds th at ev en if th e co ur t

co rrec tl y de te rm in ed th at Lev eri ng was an arm ed care er cri m in al

, th e co ur t ab us ed it s

di sc ret io n by gi vi ng to o li tt le weig ht to m it ig at in g fact or s, su ch as Lev eri ng ’s ag e an d

su pp or ti ve fam il y

. The di st ric t co ur t, ho wev er, ha s wid e la ti tu de in de ci di ng ho w to
weig h th e rel ev an t fact or s un de r § 35 53 (a). In pr on ou nc in g Lev eri ng ’s se nt en ce, th e

co ur t s tre ss ed Leve rin g’s l en gt hy crim in al hi st or y an d di sc ip li na ry vi ol at io ns whi le

i n pr is on

. The co ur t ob se rv ed th at at th e or ig in al se nt en ci ng , it “ di dn ’t ap pe a r t h a t
[Lev eri ng ] ha d an y in te nt io n to be a l aw-ab id in g, pr od uc ti ve ci ti zen .” Ult im at el y , aft er reco gn iz in g th at Le v e r i n g ha d acce pt ed res po ns ib il it y an d was “ no lo ng er in

de ni al ,” th e co ur t va rie d do wnwar d fro m th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge by 22 m on th s

-8

-an d im

po se d co nc ur ren t se nt en ces of 2 4 0 mo n t hs on Co un t I an d 12 0 m on th s on

Co un t II. “ [I]t is ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e th at th e co u r t a b u s e d it s di sc ret io n in no t

va ry in g do wnwar d st il l fu rth er.” Uni te d St at es v. La za rs ki , 5 60 F.3 d 73 1, 7 33 (8t h

Ci r. 20 09 ). W e co nc lu de th at th ere was no ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-