*The Honor able Joseph M. Hood, Senior United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0293n.06 NO. 07-5633 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, ) ) Plaintif f-Appellee

, ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED ) STA TE S DI STR I CT C OU RT F OR v. ) THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF ) TENNESSEE DE MA RCU S F I F ER, ) ) AM EN DE D O P IN ION Defendant-

Appellant. )

Be fore : COOK and McKEAGUE, Circ uit J udg es; HOOD , Senior District J udg e. * HOOD, Senior

District J udg e. De fenda nt/Appellant Demar cus F ifer ( “De fenda nt”) wa s sentenc ed on cha

rg es of being a felon in possession of a firea rm and beingin possession of coca ine base wi t h the intent to distribute. Defe ndant appe aled his sentenc e, and this Court rema nded the matter for rese ntencing . Def

endant now a

ppeals the se ntence imposed by the district court during
rese ntencing . For

the re asons set for

th below, Def

endant’ s sentence is affirme d. BACK GR OUND On Fe bruar

y 6, 2006, a jury

in the Western District of Tenne ssee f ound Def endant guilty

of be inga fe lon in p os se ssi on

of a fi re arm , in

vio latio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. § 84 1( a )(1), and of be ingin po sse ssi on

of c oc a ine ba se wi th i nte nt to dist ri bu te , in viol a tio n of 18 U. S.C. § 922 (g ). On Au g us t 19, 2004, the district court de termined, ba sed upon the infor mation co n t ai n ed in the Presentenc eAs this Court’s previous Opinion contains a detailed na

rrative of the fa cts underly ing the 1 char g es ag ainst Defe ndant, they will not be repe ated he rein.

2 Report, that Def

endant was a ca

ree r off ender pursuant to § 4B 1.1 of the United States Sentenc ing Gui d el i n es (t h e “ Gu i d el i n es ”)
. De fe n d an twa s s en t en ce d t o 1 2 0 m o n t h s i mp ri sonment on the fire arm
o f f e n s e an d 2 9 2 m o n t h s i mp r i s o n m e n to nt h e dr u g o f f e n s e , w i t h t h e s e n t e n c e s t o r u nc o n c u r r e n t l y. Def endant appea led his c onviction a nd sentenc e. On Novembe r 20, 2006, finding no err ors
war ranting reve rsal of D efe ndant’s convi ct i o n, but finding that the district court’s re liance on the prese ntence repor

t alone wa s, without more, insufficient to cla ssify Def endant as a c are er of

fende r, this Court remanded the c ase f or re sentenc ing. See United States v. Fifer , 2 06 F e d. Ap px. 5 02 (6 th Cir. 2006). Specifica lly , this Court remanded the c ase to the district c ourt to determine:

1 . . . whether

Fife r wa s proper ly

deeme d a “c are er of

fende r” unde r to [si c] U.S.S .G. § 4B1.1. The district c ourt is r equire d to e x plain the basis for its c oncl u s i o n t h at F if e r' s p ri or c on vic tio ns we re qu a lif yin g o ff e ns e s, or to s e nte nc e F if

e r a ne w i n acc ordanc e with Sh e

pa rd and Taylor
. Fi n al l y , we VA C AT E an d R E M AN D F i fe r's sentenc e to be r eca lculated in ac corda nce w ith Booke r . Id. at 513. On Ma y 4, 2 0 0 7 , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtc o n d u c t e d a r e s e n t e n c i n g h e ar i n g , i mp o s i n g t h e s a me sentenc e of 120 a

nd 292 months, to run concur rently
. Def

endant appeals his new sentence , arguing that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e xce e de d th e sc op e of

the re mand

by c on sid e ri nga dd iti on a l e vid e nc e of his pr ior c ri me s d ur ingthe re se nte nc ingand by fai lin g to a pp ly the No ve mbe r 1 , 2 00 7 ame ndme nt t o § 4 A1 .2 of

the Gu ide lin e s. DI SCU SSIO N Scope of Mand ate Def en d an t a r g u e s th a t t

h e d is tr ic t c o u rt e xc e e d e d th e s c o p e o f

th is Co u rt’ s ma

n d a te w h en,3

at t he resentenc ing he aring , the district court c onsidered a dditional evidence reg ardingDef endant’ s prior convic tions in order “to e ither explain the basis for its conclusion that the prior convictions
we re qu a lif

y ingof fe ns e s und e r U .S. S.G . § 4B 1. 1, or to se nt ence Fif

e r a ne w i n a c c or da

nc e wi th Sh e pa rd and Taylor .” Id. at 513. This Court has interpre ted Shepard v. United States , 544 U.S. 13 (2005) a nd Taylor v. United States , 4 95 U. S. 5 75 (1 99 0) “ to me an that a dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n of wh e the r a de fe nd ant i s
a ca ree r off en d er u nder U .S.S.G. § 4B1.1 must be based on infor mation contained in the judicial
rec ord.” Fifer, 2 0 6 Fe d
. Ap p x . at 5 1 2 (c i t i n g United States v. Calloway , 189 Fe d. Appx. 486, 490-91 (6th Cir. 2006)). At the resente ncing hear ing, the district court followed this Court’s direc tive and
rec eived a dditional evidence into the record in order to deter mine if Def

endant’ s prior cr imes were
c ri me s o f v iol e nc e . Sp e c if ic a lly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

c on sid e re d th e c ha

rg ingdo c u

m e nt s and jud g me nts from the Criminal Court of Shelby County , the place of De fenda nt’s prior convic tions, which were
a tta c he d to the Th ir d A dd e nd um t o th e Pr e se nte nc e Re po rt
. Up on re vie w of the c ha rg ingdo c ume nts and judg ments from the Criminal Court of Shelby Count y , the district court c oncluded that Def endant’ s prior cr imes wer e crimes of vi olence , thus classify ing him as a c are er of

fende r pursua

nt to § 4B1.1 of the Guidelines. Def endant ha s provided no per suasive author ity in light of our de cision in United States v. S t o ut , 5 9 9 F
. 3 d 5 4 9 , 5 5 7 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) to s u p p o rt h is ar g u me n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c ourt was not entitled to a cce pt a dditional e vidence in order to c omply with this C ourt’s mandate to explain the basis for its c onclusion that the prior convictions wer e qualifying offe nses under U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 or t o sentenc e Defenda

nt anew consistent with Shepard and Taylor. At Def endant’ s rese ntencing hear ing, the district court re cog nized the very purpose of the re mand when it stated that “what I have4

to do is de termine whether the defe ndant is a ca ree r off ender , or look ane w at that issue.” I n order to look anew at that issue, it was necessa ry for the district court to consider the docume nts attache d to the Third Addendum to the P rese ntence Report. Afte r consider ing the char g ing doc uments and judgme nts from the Criminal Court of Shelby County , the district court c oncluded that the judicia l
rec ord provided a

basis for concluding that Def endant is a ca

ree r off ender , pursuant to § 4B 1.1 of the Guidelines. This Court finds no err or in the district c ourt’s consideration of additional information at the
rese ntencinghear ing a

nd will affirm De fenda

nt’s sentenc e. Se nt e nc ing G uide line s A m e ndm e nt Def endant wa s rese ntence d on May 4, 2007, and the district cour t properly applied the 2003
ve rs ion of the Gu ide lin e s w hic h w e re in e ff e c t at th a t ti me . D e fend ant no w a rgue s th a t hi s c a se should be rema

nded to the district cour

t to consider the November 1, 2007 amendment to § 4A1.2 of the Guide lines, as the application of the 2007 Guidelines would not r esult in his classification as
a ca ree r off ender . Contrary

to Defe ndant’s arg ument, reg ardle ss of which version of the Guidelines is use d to c alculate Def

endant’ s sentenc e, he is c hara cter ized a s a car eer offe nder be cause the re cord ref lects an inter

vening arr est which re quires that his previous sente nces be counted se parately
. Section 4A1.2(a ) of the Guidelines is used to determine w hether a def endant is cla ssified as
a c are e r o ff

e nd e r p ur su ant t o § 4B 1. 1, wh ic h p ro vid e s th a t:
a ) A de fe nd ant is a c are e r of fe nd e r if (1 ) the de fe nd ant w a s at le a st e ig hte e n y e ars old at the time t he defenda

nt committed the i nstant offe nse of c onviction; (2) the instant offe nse of c onviction is a felony that is either a c rime of violenc e or a cont ro l l ed substance of

fense ; and (3) the defe ndant has at least t wo prior f elony convictions of either a crime of violence or

a contr olled substance of fense
. To deter mine how to count prior c onvictions, one looks to § 4A1.2(a)(2 ). Section 4A1.2(a )(2) of5

the 2003 v er s i o n o f t he Guidelines c ontained the f ollowing languag e re g ardinghow to treat prior
se nte nc e s im

po se d in re late d a nd unre late d c a se s: (2) Prior se ntence s imposed in unrelated c ases are t o be counte d separ ately . Prior sentenc es imposed in related ca ses are to be treated as one sentenc e for purposes of 4A1. 1 (a ), (b) and (c) . Use the long est sentenc e of imprisonment if conc urre nt sentenc es were impos ed and the agg reg ate sentence of imprisonment imposed in the case of conse cutive sente nces. U. S.S. G. § 4 A1 .2 (a )( 2) (2 00 3) . E ff e c tiv e No ve mbe r 1, 20 07 , that pr ov isi on wa s ame nd e d to state t h e f o l l o wi n g: (2) I f t he defenda

nt has multiple prior sentenc es, dete rmine whe ther those se ntence s are coun ted sepa

rate ly or as a single sentenc e. Prior sente nces a lway s are counted separ ately if the sentenc es we re imposed f or off enses that we re se parated by an int e rv e nin g arr e st ( i.e ., the de fe nd ant is arr e ste d f or the fi rs t of

fe ns e pr ior

to committing the second offe nse). I f there is no intervening arr est, prior sentenc es ar e counted se parately

unless (A) the sentenc es resulted f rom offe nses containe d in the s a m e c h ar g i n g i n s t r

u m e n t ; o r ( B ) t h e s e n t e n c e s w e r e i mp o s e d o nt h e s a m e d ay. Count any

prior sente nce c overe d by (A) or (B ) as a single sentenc e. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)( 2) (2007)
. The re co rd i n d icates that Defe ndant was a rre sted on Novembe r 27, 1997 for ag g ravated assault involving a firea

rm, a felony
. Def

endant wa s also arr ested for felony ag g ravated assault on J une 14, 1998; howeve r, this assault i nvolved t he use of a bottle. Although he was sentenc ed for the ag g ravated assaults on the s am e day , J anuar y 20, 1999, as explained in the 2007 version of the Guidelines, De fenda

nt’s prior sentenc es are counted se parately beca use they wer e sepa

rate d by an interveningarr est. Reg ardle ss of which ve rsion of the Guide lines applies, Def endant h as two convictions for f

elony crimes of

violence, qualifying him as a car eer offe nder unde r § 4B 1.1. Be ca u s e application of the 2007 amendme nt to § 4A1.2(a)( 2) would not alter the calc ulation of De fe nd ant’ s c ri min a l hi sto ry , th e Court ne e d n ot a dd

re ss t he iss ue of

wh e the r t

he a me ndme nt i s subject t o retroa ctive application. Def endant’ s reque st that the 2007 amendment to the Guidelines6

be applied r etroa ctively

would be fr

uitless. CO NC LU SION F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , D e fe nd ant’ s se nte nc e is AF F IRMED.