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: 09a0029n.06 F iled: Janu ary 15, 2009 No. 06-5907 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. J UDUNE BROWN, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP PE A L FROM 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 OR E: NO RRIS, BA TC HELD ER , R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s. ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ge. Def endant Judune Br o wn challeng es the 188-month prison sentenc e imposed on him following his g uilty plea on the charg e of being a fe lon in possession of a fire arm. Br own argues that the district c ourt err ed in c lassifying him a s a Ar med Care er Criminal during sentenc ing. B eca

use t his argument is without merit, we affirm the sentenc e im posed by the dis tr ic t c ourt
. On April 2, 2004, B rown attempted to rob the L iberty Super Mar

ket in Memphis, Tennesse e. One e mploy ee pr evente d Br own fr o m entering the marke t’s office are a, while a nother e mploy ee
c o n f r o n t e d B r o w n . B r o w ns t r

u g g l e d w i t h t h e s e c o n d

e mp l o ye e , s t r

u c k t h e e mp l o ye e o v e r t h e e ye with a handgun, and t hen fled from the store . Police office rs and the ma rket owne r pursue d Br own, and a w itness reporte d seeing Br own fire multipl e shots dur ing the pursuit. Brow n then attemptedNo. 06-5907

Un ite d S tat es v . B ro wn

- 2 - to e scape in a car , but w as appre hended afte r he w rec ked the c ar. O ffice rs found a handg un on the driver’ s seat in the wr ecke d car

. After his arre st, police discover ed that B rown wa s a convic ted fe l o n . As a re sult, he was indicted i n the United States District Court for the Western District of Te nnessee on one count of be inga fe lon in p os se ssi on

of a fi re arm in v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U.S. C. § 92 2( g ). B ro wn ple d guil ty

to t his char g e on F ebrua

ry 10, 2006. The P rese ntence Report (“PS R”) prepare d for B rown’s se ntencinghear ing de termined that he should be assig ned an offe nse level of 34 unde r the Sentenc ing G uidelines. This level wa s based
on B ro wn ’s c la ssi fi c a tio n a s an A rm e d Ca re e r Cr imi na l un de r 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 4( e ) a nd B ro wn ’s us e of his g un in c onnection with a crime of violence. U.S.S.G. § 4b1.4(b)( 3)(A)

. The PSRlisted three prior agg ravated robbery convictions as the pre dicate of fense s for B rown’s A rmed Car eer Criminal classification. The district c ourt ac cepte d this classification and the c orre sponding of fense level of 34. The c ourt subtrac ted three levels base d on Br own’s ac cepta nce of responsibility

. The c ourt’s ca lculations produce d a final offe nse leve l of 31, which, with B rown’s c riminal history categ ory of VI , resulted in a G uidelines sentenc ing r ang e of 188 to 235 months in prison. The district cour

t addre ssed t he relevant sentencing fac tors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) a nd conclude d that Br own should serve a term of 188 months in prison, to be followed by three y ear s of supervise d rele ase.Br own’s sole a

rg ument on appea l is t h at t h e d i s trict court e rre d in classifying him as a n Armed Car eer

Criminal. Brown a

rg ues that this c lassification was inappropriate bec ause his thre eNo. 06-5907

Un ite d S tat es v . B ro wn

- 3 - predic ate of

fense s “we re the resu l t of a sing le ar rest, a sing le cour

t hear ing, a

nd all the sentenc es imposed ran c oncurr ently .” Bec ause these facts are not rele vant t o Br own’s cla ssification under the Armed Car eer

Criminal Act (“A CCA”), the dis tric t c o u r t’ s classification and resulting sentenc e we re proper . Th e dis tr ic t c ourt pr op e rl y c la ssi fi e d B ro wn a s an A rm e d Ca re e r C ri min a l un de r 1 8 U .S. C. § 9 24 (e )( 1) . T he statut e pr ov ide s: I n the ca se of a person who vi olates section 922(g ) of this title and has three previous convictions

. . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense , or bot h, committed on occa sions differe nt from one a nother, such pe rson shall be fined unde r this titl e and i m prisoned not less than fifte en y ear s, and, notwithstanding a ny other provision of law, the c ourt shall not suspend the sentenc e of, or g rant a probationar

y sentenc e to, such per son with respec t to the conviction under se ction 922(g ). § 924(e) (1). This cour

t review s de novo th e d i s t ri ct court’s le g al deter mination that Brown’ s offe nses wer e “committed on occa sions diff ere nt f rom one a nother.” Un ite d Stat es v . H ill , 440 F.3d 292, 295 (6th Cir. 2006). While in som e case s this de termination involves a deta iled analy sis of the distinct nature of a

series of uninterrupted of

fense s, see, e.g., United States v. Murphy , 107 F.3d 1199 (6th Cir. 1997), this is not one of t h o s e ca s es . Br own has thre e prior c onvictions for ag g ravated robber y involving thre e diffe rent victims on three differ ent day s in October a nd November

of 1996. The district cour

t corre ctly

treated these c onvictions as separate episodes when classify ing B rown as an A rmed Car eer

Offe nder. I n his brief, B rown c oncede s this funda mental point: “[t]he de fenda nt c oncede s that under this Court’s case law

reg ardingwhether

conv i ctions qualify

as sepa rate occa sions, the three convictions . . . qualify

as three separ ate c rimes.” I nstead, Br own argues that cla ssify ing him as a nNo. 06-5907

Un ite d S tat es v . B ro wn

- 4 - Armed Car eer

Criminal “does not adva

nce Cong ress’ intent to punish rec idivist offe nders unde r the AC CA ” be c a

us e “ the pr e dic a te of

fe ns e s of the de fe nd ant we re the re su lt of a sin g le arr e st, a

sin g le court proc eeding , and re sulted in concurr ent sentenc es.” On s ev era l occa sions, this court ha s expli citly reje cted the argument that these facts make classification under § 924(e )(1) improper. See United States v. Ande rson , 76 F.3d 685, 691 (6th Cir. 1996) (“ [D] efe ndant’s re ceipt of c oncurr ent sentenc es for

these three prior f

elony drug convictions does not mean that the convictions wer e par t of the same c ri min a l e pis od e .” ); United States v. Roac h , 958 F.2d 679, 683 (6th Cir. 1992) (finding Ar me d Ca re e r C ri min a l st a tus a

pp ro pr ia te e ve n th ou g h “ a ll o f the c onvic tio ns oc c ur re d on th e same date and ste mme d f

ro m th e same ind ic tme nt” ); Un ite d S tat es v . W

hit e , N o . 0 5
- 6737, 2 0 0 7 WL 12 17 96 0, a t *3 (6 th C ir . Apr il 2 5, 20 07 ) ( ho ldi ng th ese sam e fa c ts i rr e le va nt t o th e AC CA
c la ssi fi c a tio n) ; Jame

s v. United States , 2 1 7 F
. A p p ’ x 4 3 1 , 4 4 1 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7) ; Un i t ed S tates v. Perkins , 24 2 F
. Ap p’ x 3 38 , 34 2- 43 (6 th Cir

. 20 07 ). Th e re fo re , the distri ct c ou rt a pp ro pr ia te ly reje cted this argument and cla ssified Br own as a n Armed Car eer

Criminal under § 924(e )(1)

. For these re asons, we A FF I RM Brown’ s sentence
.