The Honor able Patric k J . Dug g an, United States District Judge f or th e E as tern District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0358n.06 No. 07-5567 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. DE MO ND O H I

NE S, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

BEF ORE: MARTI

N and GRI FF I

N, Circuit J udg es; and DU GGAN, D istrict J udg e. * GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. Def endant De mondo Hines appe als his 18 0 -m o nth mandatory minimum Armed Car eer Cr imi na l se nte nc e e nte re d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

in c onne c tio n w ith

his g uil ty ple a to b e inga fe lon

in possession of a fir ear

m, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)
. Hines’s sole a rg ument on appea l is that the district court a lleg edly

err ed in sentenc ing him as a n Armed Car eer

Criminal. W e disag ree and af firm. I. At the tim e of the pr e se nt of fe ns e , Hin e s had se ve ra l pri or fe lon y c on vic tio ns . Pe rt ine nt t o this appeal a

re f our ag g ravated robbe ries Hines c ommitt ed in 1995 i n Memphis, Tennesse e. Specifica lly , on J uly 29, 1995, at approx imately 10:40 p.m., Hines and a nother man a

pproac hed aNo. 07-5567

United States v. Hine

s

- 2 - woman at 1026 J ackson Street, stuck a handgun in he r side, stole her car and p u rs e, an d d rove northb o u n d o n Ja c k s o n Str e e t. L a te r o n Ju ly 3 0 , 1 9 9 5 , a t 1 2 :0 9 a . m. , H in e s an d thr e e other men approa ched a

limousi ne drive r on Va

n ce S t re et
. On e of the men jumped into the back se at of the parke d limousi ne, stole a pur se l ef t b eh i n d by

a passe ng er, a

nd struck the dr iver in the fa ce. A couple of hours later , at 2:10 a.m
. , Hi n es and several other s brandished a pistol at four women walking down Main Street, instructing them to dr op their purses. The men g rabbe d the purses a nd fled on foot. F inally , at 4:30 a.m. on B eal Stree t, Hines and seve ral men e x ited a par ked vehicl e, dis pla y e d a pis tol , a nd too k mone y and pe rs on a l pro pe rt y fr om two wo me n w a lki ngdo wn the str e e t. Hines fled the scene in the first victim’s car
. On J anuar

y 25, 2006, a fede ral g rand jury indicted Hines for being a felon in possession of a firear m in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ). Hines pled guilty to the indictment pursuant to a plea ag ree ment with the g overnme nt, w hich contained an ag ree d-to 70-month term o f i m p ri sonment pursuant to F ED . R. C R IM . P. 11(c)( 1)(c ). Hines’s pre sentenc e re port (“P S R ”) a ssessed his base of fense level at 24, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a )(2) (2006), “ Unlawf ul Receipt, Possession, or Transpor tation of Fi re ar ms or Am mun iti on [,]” and

re c omm e n d e d

a f o u r - l e v e l u p w a r d a d j u s t m e nt , U .S. S.G . § 2K 2. 1( b) (6 ), be c a us e he purp or te dly us e d th e fi re arm in c on ne c tio n wi th a no the r f e lony of fe ns e . T he PSR c a lc ulate d h is criminal history

at Categ ory

VI based on 18 c riminal history points. The PSR also aff orded a three

le ve l r e du c tio n f

or a c c e pta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty , U .S. S.G. § 3E 1. 1( a )- (b ), yie ldi nga tot a l of fe ns eNo. 07-5567

United States v. Hine

s

- 3 - level of 25 a

nd an advisory

Guidelines ra

ng e of 110- 137 months of imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A (Sentenc ing T able) (2006). Howeve r, the PSR re comm ended a pply ing U .S.S.G. § 4B1.4 (2006), “ Armed Car eer Cr imi na l,” ins te a d o f § 2K 2. 1( a )( 2) , b e c a us e Hi ne s h a d at le a st thr e e pr ior vio le nt f e lo ny c o nv ic tio ns . See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The PSR as s es s ed h i s base of fense level at 34 be cause § 4B1.4( b)(3) (A) pr ov ide s th a t if

the fi re arm

ill e g a lly po sse sse d by

Hi ne s in the § 9 22 (g ) c on vic tio n w a s u se d in
c onnect io n wi th a cr ime of vio le nc e , th e ba se of

fe ns e le ve l is 34 rathe r t ha n 3 3, wh ic h w ou ld otherwise a

pply . The PSR continued to apply a t h re e- level re duction for a cce ptance of responsibility , § 3E1.1(a) -(b) , and Hines’s criminal history rema ined at Categ ory VI , § 4B1.4( c)( 1), yiel d i n g a t o t al offense leve l of 31 and a n advisory

Guidelines ra

ng e of 188- 235 months of imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A (Sentenc ing T able) (2006). On April 12, 2007, the district co u rt conduc ted Hines’s se ntencing . At the hea ring , the district court re calc ulated Hines’ s total offense level at 30, whic h produce d an advisory Guidelines rang e of 168- 210 months of imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A (Sentenc ing T able) (2006). Ne xt, th e dis tr ic t c ourt

state d that if it we re to se nte nc e Hi ne s as a n A rm e d Ca

re e r C ri min a l, the re su lt in g 180 -m on th m and a tor y min imum pr iso n s e nte nc e un de r 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 4( e ) w ou ld conflict with the 70-mont h ag ree d-to sentenc e conta ined in the par ties’ plea a g ree ment. I n light of this development, the district court e ng ag ed in a leng thy discussion w ith Hines, placinghim under
oath, and a sk inghim

re pe a te dly

wh e the r h e wa

nte d to wi thd

ra w h is guil ty ple a

and pr oc e e d to tr ia l.No. 07-5567

United States v. Hine

s

Hi ne s ha s n o tar g u e d

t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u rte r

r e d i nc o n c l u d i n g t h a te a c h o f h i s p r e d i c a te 1 ag g ravated robbe ry

convictions are violent felonies under 18 U.S.C
. § 9 2 4 ( e )
. A ccor dingly , we de em the i ssue forfeited. United States v. J ohnson , 440 F.3d 832, 845-46 (6th Cir.2006) (“[A]n appellant abandons all issues not r aised and argued in its initial brie f on appea l[ .]”) (interna l quotation marks and citations omitted). - 4 - See F ED . R. C R IM . P. 11 (c )( 5) (B ). Hi ne s r e sp on de d th a t he wa s guil ty , d id n ot w ant t o w ith dr aw h is plea, a nd had no desire for a

trial. After Hines dec lined to withdraw his plea, the district court consider ed his argument that the ag g ravated robbe ries in J une 1995 should count as only one pre dicate of

fense beca

use they
re pr e se nte d a

sin g le , c on tin

uo us six- ho ur c ri me sp re e , r a the r t ha n f our s e pa rate c ri min a l e pis od e s. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

re je c te d Hi ne s’ s po sit ion , ru lin g that th e a g g ra vate d r ob be ri e s, a lth ou g h c los e in time, occur

red at differ ent locations, involved di ffe rent victim s, and, most importantly , afte r Hines had complete d eac h robber y , he had sa fely

esca ped and could have c ease d his criminal conduct. The district court there afte r applied U .S.S.G. § 4B1
. 4 and sente nced H ines to the statutory mandatory minimum of 180 months of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Hines timely

appea ls his sentence. II. We r e vie w d e no vo Hi ne s’s so le c on te nti on on a pp e a l – t hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d in
c la ssi fy inghim a s an Arm e d Ca

re e r C ri min a l. U

n i t e d S t a t es v . Hi ll , 4 4 0 F. 3d 292, 295 (6th Cir. 1 20 06 ). Th e Ar

me d Ca re e r C ri min a l A c t ( “ AC CA ” ) s tate s: I n the ca se of a

person who violate s section 922(g ) of this title and has three previous convictions b y an y

court re fer

red to in sec tion 922(g )(1) of this titl e for a violent felony or a serious drugoffe nse, or both, committed on oc casions different from oneNo. 07-5567

United States v. Hine

s

- 5 - another , s uc h p e rs on

sh a ll b e fi ne d [no t mo re tha n $2 5, 00 0] and

imp ri so ne d n ot l e ss than fiftee n y ear s. . . . 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (empha sis added). Whether his four c onvictions f or ag g ravated robber

y are separ ate pr edicate offe nses under ACCA is a function of whe ther they repr esent multiple criminal episodes that wer e distinct in time, as opposed to multiple convictions arising out of a single criminal episode. United States v. Murphy , 107 F.3d 1199, 1209 (6th Cir. 1997). We have define d an “e pisode” a s “an inc ident that is part of
a se ri e s, bu t f

or ms a se pa rate un it wi thi n the wh ole
. Al tho ug h re late d to the e nti re c ours e of e ve nts , an episode is a punctuate d occur renc e with a limited duration.” Id. (citation om itted). Hines ar g ues that beca use his convictions stem from a sing le, six -hour c rime spre e, he is n ot the ty pe of continuous rec idivist that ACCA is designe d to punish. Whil e in many case s this inquiry “involves a de tailed ana ly sis of the distinct nature of a series of uninterr

upted offe nses, see , e.g. , [ Murphy , 107 F.3d at 1208-10], this is not one of those case s.” Un ite d S tat es v . B ro wn , 3 06 F . App ’x 94 1, 94 2 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 9) (unpub lis he d) . We pr e vio us ly reje cted Hines’s close-in- time a rg ument in United States v. Brady , 988 F.2d 664 (6th Cir. 1993) (e n banc) . Sitt ing en banc, we held “that offe nses committed by a defe ndant at diffe rent times and plac es
and a g a ins t di ff

e re nt v ic tim s, a lth ou g h c omm itt e d w ith in le ss tha n an h our o f e a c h o the r, are se pa rate
and dis tin c t c ri min a l e pis od e s and that c on vic tio ns fo r t

ho se c ri me s sh ou ld b e c ounte d a s se pa rate predic ate c onvictions under § 924(e )(1) .” Id. I n Brady , two of the defenda nt’s predic ate c onvictions were for r obberie s that occur red on the s am e n i g ht. Id. at 666. Specific ally , on Dec ember 22, 1976, the def

endant br andished aNo. 07-5567

United States v. Hine

s

- 6 - sawe d-off shotgun and robbed severa l women at the Ma ck Ave nue B eauty Shop. Id. This robbery
occur red at ap p ro x i m ately

9:30 p.m. Id. Thirty

minutes later, the de fenda nt entere d the Club Continental Bar
. Id. About fiftee n minutes later, he br andished the same wea pon, robbed se vera l people, an d shot a woman in the leg
. Id. The de fenda nt argued that his two prior c onvictions for
arme d robber

y “should count only

as one pr edica

te offe nse becau s e they

repr esent[ed] a single,
c on tin uo us c ri me sp re e rathe r t

ha n tw o s e pa

rate of fe ns e s. [Th e de fe nd ant] f

oc us e [d] on

the thi rt y to fo rt y -f ive min ute tim e pe ri od th at sepa

rate d th e tw o o ff

e ns e s a nd argue [d] th a t c los e pr oximi ty in time merg es otherw ise distinct offense s for purposes of deter mining predic ates under § 924( e)( 1).” Id. at 668. We r ejec ted this a

rg ument beca

use the defe ndant’s crimes wer e committed “ag ainst differ ent vic tim s at di ff

e re nt p la c e s and

a t di sti nc tly dif

fe re nt t ime s” and

he ha d s uc c e ssf

ull y c omp le te d h is first robber

y and esc aped f

rom the bea

uty shop befor e he committed the second robber y at the bar
. Id. at 669. Acc ording to our en ba nc cour t, while [the] defe ndant [] sat at the Club Continental Ba r with his conce aled shotg un, he could ha

ve dec ided that t he one robber y . . . was enoug h for the evening . I nstead, he de c ide d to ro b a g a in, and , a ft e r r ob bin g the patr on s o f t he ba r, he sh ot o ne fe ma le patron in the leg . Thus, seen f rom either a

n objective or

subjective point of view, [t he] defenda

nt[ ’s] crimes wer e sepa

rate episodes. Id. at 669-70. Hi ne s d oe s no t c ha lle ng e on a pp e a l that his pr e dic a te of

fe ns e s o c c ur

re d at di ff e re nt l oc a tio ns , a t se pa rate tim e s, and

inv olv e d dif

fe re nt vic tim s. Mo st imp or tantl y , h e e sc a

pe d e a c h r ob be ry

sa fe ly be fo re de c idi ngto r e sume his c ri min a l a c tiv ity . U nd e r t hes e cir cum st anc e s, we ho ld t hat BradyNo. 07-5567

United States v. Hine

s

- 7 - controls Hines’s a

rg ument. Moreove r, in the district court duringthe sentenc ing he aring , Hines’s
counse l s t at ed that “leg ally speakingunder the law, y es. . . .[t] here are four c riminal episodes” Couns e l a lso c on c e de d th a t Bradywas c ontrolling pre cede nt, arguing “ that the Bradydecision wa s in error and that we are prese rving this iss ue for the purpose of

appea l to try to chang e the c ourt of appea ls mind about that case law .” I t is a well-estab l i s h ed ru l e t hat a pa nel of this court may

not overrule a prior published decision abse nt en banc revie w or a n interveningand binding ch an ge i n t h e s t ate of the law. See Rutherford v. Columbia Gas , 57 5 F .3 d 61 6, 61 9 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 9) ; Salmi v. Sec ’y of He alth & Human Se rv s. , 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1985) . The Bradydecision is a published en ba nc opinion and
rema ins controlling a

uthority
. III
. For these re asons, we a ffirm Hine s’s sentenc e.