### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT S eptember 2, 20 04 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1046 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00348 -CR- T- TB M UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, P laintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us JOSE ANGEL HERNANDE Z-MARTINEZ, a. k.a. Angel Mar

tinez, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 2, 200 4) Be fo re CA RN E S, H U L L a nd KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Jose Angel He rnandez-Mar tinez (“ Martinez”) appeals the sentence im posed aft er h e p le ad edgu il ty to i ll eg al re-e nt ry , in vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6.2

Specifica lly , he challenges the district court’s c alculation of his crim inal histo ry poi nts und er

U
. S. S. G
. § 4A 1. 2. Mart ine z as se rt s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt, in
co m put ing his c ri m ina l hi sto ry , sho uld ha ve c ount ed

his tw o pr ior

state f el ony convictio ns as a single conv iction because the state sentences we re not separated by a n in te rv en ing a rr es t. H er e, w e ar e as ke d to de ci de w he the r, und er the f ac ts o f thi s c as e, ade fe ndant’ s pr ior c onvi ct ion s c ount

a s on e co nvi ct ionf

or de te rm ini ng
a de fe ndant’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry . A s th er e is n o di sput e that M ar tin ez ’ s pr ior
co nvi ct ion s w er e not

se parate d by

a n in te rv en ing a rr es t, the iss ue be fo re us i s
w h e t h e r p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s a r e r e l a t e dwh e n t h e o f f e n s e s o c c u rr e do n d i f

f e r e n td a ys and invo lved different victim s, there wa s no int ervening arrest, the offenses w ere ch ar ge d inse parate ind ic tm en ts and the de fe ndant r ec ei ve d se parate j udgm en ts, but th e defe ndant was sentenced to concurrent sentences on the sam e day before th e sa m e jud ge . I. Ba ck gr ound In 2003, Martinez w as arr ested in Florida for aggravated batter y . At that tim e, he a dm itt ed

that he ha d r e- en te re d th e U nit ed S ta te s il le ga lly
. T he pr oba tio n of fi ce r ca lc ulate d M ar

tin ez ’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y ba se d ontw o pr ior

state court convictio ns. In c ase num ber 95-2442, Martinez had pleaded nolo contend ere fo r atte m pte d m ur de r in the se co nd d eg re e w ithaf ir earm . H e w as se nte nc ed to3

five y ears im

prisonm ent and ten y ears probation on April 3, 1996. In ca se num ber 95-268 7, Mar

tinez pleaded nolo con tendere to aggravated assault with a f irear m and was sentenced on April 3, 1996, to five y ears im prisonm ent, to be served concurrently

with the sentence in case num ber 95-2442. The probation officer noted th at Martinez wa s arre sted for the aggravated assault offense while he was incarce rated on the attem pted m urder char ge. The probation officer also noted th atth e two off

en se s i nv ol ve d d iff

eren t v ic ti m s an d o ccu rred on di ffer en t d ay s. Martinez obj ected to the PSI , arguing, inter alia, that his crim inal histo ry category shoul d be IVunder U. S. S. G. § 4A1.2 beca use his two prior state court
co nvi ct ion s w er e re la te d, a s th ey w er e not se parate d by

a n in te rv en ing a rr es t, a nd that the y w er e co nsol idate d f

or se nte nc ing
. A lth oughMart ine z co nc ed ed that the two offe nses inv olved di ffer ent crim es occurring on different day s, he a sserted that the tw o of

fe nse s w er e co nsol idate d be ca use he w as se nte nc ed

f or both of fe nse s on the sam e day . I n su

ppor t of his a rg um en ts, Mart ine z subm itt ed the doc ke t sh ee ts and judgm ents from

his state court convictio ns. T hese exhibits dem onstrated that Mart ine z ple ad ed

to atte m pte d m ur de r in c as e 95- 2442 a nd w as se nte nc ed on Apr il 3, 1996, at 11 a. m . to five y ears im prisonm ent and ten y ears probation. Mar tinez ple ad ed to ag gr av at ed

a ssa ult in ca se 95- 2687 a nd w as se nte nc ed on Apr il 3, 199 6, at 11 a
. m . to fi ve y ears im

pr iso nm en t, to run c onc ur re nt w ithhis se nte nc e in c as eA distr ict court’s f actua l determination that a de fenda nt’s prior convic tions are indepe ndent 1 for pur poses of de terminingcriminal history will not be disturbed unless clea rly err oneous. United States v. Hunter, 323 F .3d 1314, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2003) ; United States v. Mullens, 65 F.3d 1560, 1565 (11th Cir. 1995); see a lso Bufor d v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 121 S.Ct . 1276, 149 L .Ed.2d 197 (2001) ( applying de fer ential re view to question of whe ther c ases we re c onsolidated for pur poses of c are e r- of fe nd e r s tatus ) 4 95- 2442
. A cc or din g to the r ec or ds, Mart ine z w as r ep re se nte d by tw o di ff er en t at to rn ey s i n t he se cas es . At sentencing, the district court overruled the obj ection, finding that the fact that the tw o c ri m es w er e se nte nc ed on the sam e day

did not e qua te w iththe convictio ns being consolid ated for sentencing. T he court then sentenced Martinez to 87 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t an d 3 y ears su pe rv is edrel eas e. II
. Mart ine z’ s c la im Martinez argues that the court erre d in calculating hi s crim inal histo ry poi nts be ca

use his tw o st at e of

fe nse s w er e not

se parate d by

a n in te rv en ing a rr es t
un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.2
. W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n th at pr ior c onvi ct ion s are not
re la te d un de r U
. S. S. G
. § 4A 1. 2 f or c le ar e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. H unt er , 323 F
. 3d 1 1314 , 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2003 ). T he U. S. Suprem e Court has confirm ed that appellate courts shou ld giv e “ ‘ due defere nce’ ” to a district court’ s application o f a

‘ Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s te rm ’ to the f ac ts. ” Bu fo rd

v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 532 U
. S. 59, 63- 64, 121 S
. Ct
. 127 6, 149 L
. E d. 2d 1 97 ( 2001 ); U nit ed S ta te s v. Whit e, 335 F
. 3dThe pa rties agree that the offe nses did not occur on the same occa sion a

nd wer e not par

t of 2 a common sche me or plan. 5 1314 , 131 8 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) ( not ing that w e “ w ill not f ind c le ar e rr or unl es s our
re vie wof the r ec or d le av es us ‘ w iththe de fi nit e an d f irm c onvi ct ionthat a

m ist ak e ha s b een co m

m it te d.’”). U nde r U
. S. S. G
. § 4A 1. 2, in ca lc ulatin g ac ri m ina l hi sto ry sc or e, pr ior sentences im

posed for related convictions s houl d be counted as on e sentence. See U
. S. S. G
. § 4A 1. 2( a) (2 ). Appl ic at ionN ote 3 pr ovi de s: Prior sentences are not considered related if they we re f or offenses that w er e se parate d by

a n in te rv en ing a rr es t ( i. e. , the de fe ndant i s arre sted for the first off

ense prior to com

m itting the second offense). O the rw ise , pr ior

se nte nc es a re c onsi de re d r el at ed if the y r es ult ed f ro m offenses that (A ) occurr ed on the sam e occasion, ( B) w ere part of a sin gle c om

m on s ch em e or

plan, or ( C) w er e co nsol idate d f

or tr ia l or se nt en ci ng . U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.2 , comm en t. (n . 3). He re, the parties agree that Martinez’ s offenses w ere not separated by an int er ve nin g arr es t. C ontrary

to Mart ine z’ s un de rs tandi ng o f the gui de lin es , how ev er , our

inquir y doe s no t e nd the re . Unde r U
. S. S. G
. § 4A 1. 2, w e m ust consider whether the off

enses wer e part of a

com m on schem e or w hether they
w er e co nsol idate d f

or se nte nc ing
. Whe n de te rm ini ng whe the r ca se s are r el at ed ,

2 the c om m en tary r equir es that “ the f

ir st que sti on i s a lw ay s w he the r the und er ly ingUnder Florida law, sente nces a

re c onsolidated when they are imposed on the same da y , by 3 the same judge , using the same score sheet, and made to r un concur rently
. See Clark v. Florida , 572 So.2d 1387, 1391 (Fla. 1991) ; Williamson v. Florida , 683 So.2d 193, 194 (Fla. D ist. Ct . App. 1996). Moreove r, the state c ourt is require d to use on e s co re she et for a ll offense s “pending ” bef ore the court at sentencing . Clark, 572 So.2d at 1390-91. “Pending ” re fer s to those offense s for whic h a ve rd ic t of gu i l ty o r a p l e a o f gu i l ty o r n o l o c o n t e n d e r e h a s b e e n o b t a i n e d
. I d
. In th i s c a s e , it i s 6 of fe nse s are se parate d by

a n in te rv en ing a rr es t. T his inquir y is pr el im inary

to an y consideration o f consolidated sent encing, as re flected by use of the wor d

‘ oth er w ise
. ’ ” H unt er , 323 F
. 3d at 13 22- 23; se e al so U nit ed S tate s v. Br ad le y , 218 F. 3d 6 70, 673 ( 7thCi r. 200 0) ( ci tin g c as es dis cu ssi ng the r equir em en t tha t the di st ric t co ur t m

us t l oo k t o o th er fa ct or s o nl y if t he re was no in te rv en in g a rres t). Convictio ns are r elated for c rim inal histo ry calculations if, inter alia, they

“ w er e co nsol idate d f

or tr ia l or se nte nc ing
. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mu lle ns, 65 F
. 3d 1560 , 1565 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing U. S. S. G. § 4A1.2, com m ent. ( n.3)). In U nited States v. Ve teto, 920 F.2d 823, 824 (11th Cir. 1991), w e held that the fact that
se nte nc es w er e to r

un c onc ur

re ntl y did not c onso lid at e the c as es f

or se nte nc ing , but the de fe ndant i n th at

c as e w as se nte nc ed

by dif fe re nt j udge s ondif

fe re nt d ay s. Vete to , 92 0 F .2dat 8 26
. W e ha ve not

a ddr es se d w he the r ca se s are c onso lid at ed f or pur pose s of the
cr im ina l hi sto ry

c al cu la tio ns whe n th e de fe ndant w as se nte nc ed by the sam e j udge on the sam e day

for off enses that wer e docketed separately and that received separate j udgm ents. T he Seventh Circuit has held that in order to find that cases 3un cl ea r w h et h er th e s t at e c o urtu t i l i z eda s i n gl e s co re s h ee tfo r M a r t i n e z ’s two o ff en s es , al th o u gh it was requir ed to do so under state law, in which c ase, the sentenc es would have been c onsidered consolidated. Nota

bly , Martinez does not raise the issue of whether his sentenc es we re c onsolidated un de r s tate law, and , th e re fo re , w e ne e d n ot c on sid e r t his argume nt. 7 w er e co nsol idate d, c as es m ust be f orm al ly c onso lid at ed

by a n or de r or

“ func tio na lly

c onso lid at ed , ” w he re the “ co nvi ct ion s w er e ‘ fa ct ua lly or log ic al ly related, and sentencing was j oint.’ ” Buford, 201 F.3d 937, 940 (7th Cir. 2000 ), aff’ d 532 U. S. 59 (2001 ). T he Seventh Circuit explained that cases are func tio na lly

c onso lid at ed

w he re the de fe ndant w as c harg ed w iththe of

fe nse s in th e sa m e in di ct m en t an d h e p le ad edgu il ty at th e sa m e ti m e in th e sa m e co ur t. Id
. Other circuits to address the issu e of consolidatio n have reac hed sim ilar conclusio ns. Se e, e. g., United State s v. H uskey , 137 F. 3d 28 3, 286-88 (5th Cir. 1998 ) (a ddr es sin g c onso lid at iona nd r ev ie w ing oth er c ir cu it co urt de ci sio ns, fi ndi ng tha t ge ne ra lly

c as es a re not

c onso lid at ed

w he n th ey

r ec ei ve se parate docket num

bers or separate j udgm ents). He re, Martinez had pleaded nolo contendere to two unrelated state off enses
on th e sa m e d ay

be fo re t he same j ud ge an d was sen te nc edto co nc urren t s en te nc es . T he re w as no f

orm al c onso lid at ionor de r, the c as es ha d be ena ssi gne d di ff er en t doc ke t num

be rs , a nd M ar

tin ez doe s no t di sput e that he r ec ei ve d se parate j udgm ents. More over, M artinez w as repre sented by two diffe rent attorney s at8

se nte nc ing
. G ive n th es e fa ct or s, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr in co nc lud ing that Martinez’ s offenses w ere not cons olidated for purpos es of his crim inal histo ry cal cu la ti on s. Ac cordingly , w e A FFI RM Mar tinez’ s sentence.