FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T
NOVEMB ER 10, 2009

THOMAS K. KAH

N
CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 8

- 1 7 1 4 8

N o n

- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 7

- 0 0 0 5 7

- C R

- C L S

- P W G

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

S T E V E M

. E R L A N D

,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f A l a b a m a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( N o v e m b e r 1 0

, 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e B L A C K

, H U L L a n d F A Y

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M :

A f t e r p l e a d i n g g u i l t y , S t e v e M

. E r l a n d a p p e a l s h i s 2 1

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e f o rf

a i l u r e t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t

, i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 8 ( a ) ( 3 )

. O n a p p e a l

,

E r l a n d c h a l l e n g e s s e v e r a l o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s g u i d e l i n e s c a l c u l a t i o n s

. A f t e r 1

r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m

.

E r l a n d c h a l l e n g e s t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y s c o r e

. E r l a n d ’ s

p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t ( “ P S I ” ) a s s i g n e d o n e c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y p o i n t e a c h

f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g f

o u r g r o u p s o f m i s d e m e a n o r c o n v i c t i o n s : ( 1 ) 1 9 9 2 c o n v i c t i o n s

f o r d r i v i n g u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e ( “ D U I ” ) a n d d r i v i n g w i t h a r e v o k e d l i c e n s e , f o r

w h i c h h e r e c e i v e d a 9 0

- d a y i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e w i t h 4 5 d a y s s u s p e n d e d ; ( 2 )

1 9 9 3 c o n v i c t i o n s f

o r D U I a n d d r i v i n g w i t h a r e v o k e d l i c e n s e , f o r w h i c h h e

r e c e i v e d a 3 0

- d a y i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e , w i t h 2 8 d a y s s u s p e n d e d

, a n d 1 1 m o n t h s ’

a n d 2 9 d a y s ’ p r o b a t i o n ; ( 3 ) 1 9 9 6 c o n v i c t i o n s f o r u n l a w f

u l p o s s e s s i o n o f a

c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e a n d d r i v i n g w i t h a c a n c e l l e d

, s u s p e n d e d o r r e v o k e d l i c e n s e ,

f o r w h i c h h e r e c e i v e d a o n e

- d a y i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e ; a n d ( 4 ) a 1 9 9 7 c o n v i c t i o n

f o r d r i v i n g w i t h a c a n c e l l e d

, s u s p e n d e d o r r e v o k e d l i c e n s e , f o r w h i c h h e r e c e i v e d a

4 5

- d a y i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e

. O v e r E r l a n d ’ s o b j e c t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s c o r e d 2

We review a district cour t’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the fa cts de 1

novo and its fac tual finding for c lear err or. United States v. Kinar d, 472 F.3d 1294, 1297 n.3 (11th Cir. 2006).

For purposes of c alculating a def endant’ s criminal history

score , sentenc es for

multipl e 2

offe nses ar e counte d as a sing le sentenc e if ther e is no intervening arr est betwe en the of fense s and “( A) the se ntence s resulted fr om offense s contained in the same cha rg ing instrument; or ( B)
the sentenc es we re imposed on the sa me day .” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a )(2) (A)- (B ). Erla nd’s 1992,
1993 and 1996 convic tions were g rouped tog ether into three g roups bec ause the offe nses wer e

2o n e c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y p o i n t f o r e a c h g r o u p o f c o n v i c t i o n s f o r a t o t a l o f 4 p o i n t s ,

w h i c h y i e l d e d a c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y o f I I I

.

E r l a n d a r g u e s t h a t t h e s e f o u r g r o u p s o f m i s d e m e a n o r s s h o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n

c o u n t e d b e c a u s e t h e y a r e m o r e t h a n t e n y e a r s o l d

. T h e p r o b l e m f o r E r l a n d i s t h a t

t h e S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s d o n o t p r o h i b i t a d i s t r i c t c o u r t f r o m c o u n t i n g

c o n v i c t i o n s t h a t a r e m o r e t h a n t e n y e a r s o l d f r o m t h e t i m e o f h i s f

e d e r a l s e n t e n c e

.

R a t h e r , t h e S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s p r o h i b i t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f r o m c o u n t i n g a p r i o r

s e n t e n c e t h a t w a s n o t “ i m p o s e d w i t h i n t e n y e a r s ” o f t h e “ c o m m e n c e m e n t o f t h e

i n s t a n t o f

f e n s e

. . . . ” U

. S

. S

. G

. § 4 A 1

. 2 ( e ) ( 2 )

. F o r p u r p o s e s o f c a l c u l a t i n g t h e t e n

y e a r t i m e p e r i o d i n § 4 A 1

. 2 ( e )

, t h e t e r m “ ‘ c o m m e n c e m e n t o f t h e i n s t a n t o f f e n s e ’

i n c l u d e s a n y r e l e v a n t c o n d u c t

. ” U

. S

. S

. G

. § 4 A 1

. 2 c m t

. n

. 8

.

T h e e a r l i e s t d a t e o n w h i c h E r l a n d c o m m e n c e d h i s o f f e n s e b y w i l l f

u l l y

f a i l i n g t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t w a s o n A u g u s t 1 5

, 1 9 9 3

, t h e d a t e t h e A l a b a m a s t a t e

c o u r t ’ s o r d e r r e q u i r e d E r l a n d t o b e g i n p a y i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t

. T h e l a t e s t E r l a n d

c o m m e n c e d t h e o f

f e n s e w a s i n M a r c h 1 9 9 8

, t h e d a t e i n h i s i n d i c t m e n t

. E r l a n d ’ s 3

s e n t e n c e s f

o r h i s m i s d e m e a n o r s w e r e i m p o s e d i n 1 9 9 2

, 1 9 9 3

, 1 9 9 6 a n d 1 9 9 7

, a l l

not separated by

intervening arr ests, and the se ntence s were imposed on the same da y

.

Per the PSI , on Aug ust 3, 1993, the Alabama Circuit Court ordere d Erland to pay $537 3 per month in child support starting on Aug ust 15, 1993. At the time of his March 2007 indictment, Erland owe d approximately $54,731 in unpaid child support. Howeve r, the PSI does
not indicate whe n Erland f irst failed to make his court-orde red c hild support pay ments. The
indictment char g ed that Erla nd commence d his offense “bef ore in or a

bout March 1998.”

3w i t h i n t e n y e a r s o f e i t h e r A u g u s t 1 5

, 1 9 9 3 o r M a r c h 1 9 9 8

, a n d w e r e p r o p e r l y

c o u n t e d

.

E r l a n d ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t h i s 1 9 9 3 a n d 1 9 9 6 m i s d e m e a n o r s a r e e x p r e s s l y

e x c l u d e d b y t h e S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s i s e q u a l l y u n a v a i l i n g

. G e n e r a l l y , t h e

S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s a s s i g n o n e c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y p o i n t f o r a p r i o r m i s d e m e a n o r

w i t h a s e n t e n c e o f l e s s t h a n 6 0 d a y s

. S e e U

. S

. S

. G

. § § 4 A 1

. 1 ( c )

, 4 A 1

. 2 ( c )

. P r i o r

m i s d e m e a n o r o f

f e n s e s f o r d r i v i n g w i t h o u t a l i c e n s e o r w i t h a r e v o k e d o r s u s p e n d e d

l i c e n s e a r e c o u n t e d w h e n t h e s e n t e n c e i s f o r a t e r m o f p r o b a t i o n o v e r o n e y e a r o r a

t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t f

o r a t l e a s t 3 0 d a y s

. U

. S

. S

. G

. § 4 A 1

. 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A )

. T h e

s u s p e n d e d p o r t i o n o f a s e n t e n c e i s n o t c o u n t e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e l e n g t h o f t h e

t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t

. U

. S

. S

. G

. § 4 A 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 2 )

.

E r l a n d c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e u n s u s p e n d e d p o r t i o n o f h i s i m p r i s o n m e n t

s e n t e n c e s f

o r t h e 1 9 9 3 a n d 1 9 9 6 c o n v i c t i o n s f o r d r i v i n g w i t h a r e v o k e d l i c e n s e

w e r e 2 d a y s a n d 1 d a y , r e s p e c t i v e l y

. A l s o , E r l a n d r e c e i v e d o n l y 1 1 m o n t h s a n d 2 9

d a y s o f p r o b a t i o n f

o r t h e 1 9 9 3 c o n v i c t i o n a n d n o p r o b a t i o n f o r t h e 1 9 9 6

c o n v i c t i o n

. T h u s , t h o s e c o n v i c t i o n s f o r d r i v i n g w i t h a r e v o k e d l i c e n s e a r e n o t

c o u n t e d b e c a u s e t h e i r t e r m s o f i m p r i s o n m e n t w e r e l e s s t h a n 3 0 d a y s a n d t h e i r

t e r m s o f p r o b a t i o n , i f a n y , w e r e l e s s t h a n o n e y e a r

. S e e U

. S

. S

. G

. § 4 A 1

. 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A )

.

H o w e v e r , o t h e r t y p e s o f m i s d e m e a n o r s s t i l l c o u n t f o r o n e c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y p o i n t

4w h e r e t h e s e n t e n c e s a r e l e s s t h a n 6 0 d a y s

. S e e U

. S

. S

. G

. § § 4 A 1

. 1 ( c )

, 4 A 1

. 2 ( c )

.

E r l a n d h a d t w o c o n v i c t i o n s i n b o t h 1 9 9 3 a n d 1 9 9 6 t h a t y i e l d e d t h e o n e c r i m i n a l

h i s t o r y p o i n t

, a n d t h e 1 9 9 3 D U I c o n v i c t i o n a n d 1 9 9 6 c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e

c o n v i c t i o n e a c h s t i l l q u a l i f y f o r t h a t o n e c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y p o i n t

. T h e r e f o r e , t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y a s s i g n e d E r l a n d o n e p o i n t e a c h f o r h i s 1 9 9 3 a n d 1 9 9 6

c o n v i c t i o n s ( a l o n g w i t h o n e p o i n t e a c h f o r h i s 1 9 9 2 a n d 1 9 9 7 c o n v i c t i o n s , f o r a

t o t a l o f f o u r p o i n t s )

. 4

E r l a n d a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n a p p l y i n g a t w o

- l e v e l

i n c r e a s e i n h i s o f

f e n s e l e v e l b e c a u s e h i s o f f e n s e i n v o l v e d t h e v i o l a t i o n o f h i s 1 9 9 3

c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r

. S e e U

. S

. S

. G

. § 2 B 1

. 1 ( b ) ( 8 ) ( p r o v i d i n g f o r a t w o

- l e v e l

i n c r e a s e i f t h e o f

f e n s e i n v o l v e d “ a v i o l a t i o n o f a n y p r i o r , s p e c i f i c j u d i c i a l o r

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r d e r , i n

j u n c t i o n , d e c r e e , o r p r o c e s s n o t a d d r e s s e d e l s e w h e r e i n t h e

g u i d e l i n e s ” )

. E r l a n d ’ s a r g u m e n t i s f o r e c l o s e d b y U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. P h i l l i p s , 3 6 3

F

. 3 d 1 1 6 7 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 4 )

, w h i c h c o n c l u d e d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t ’ s “ f

a i l u r e t o p a y

c o u r t

- o r d e r e d c h i l d s u p p o r t c o n s t i t u t e d a v i o l a t i o n o f a p r i o r j u d i c i a l o r d e r ” a n d

We do not have jurisdiction to review Erland’ s claim that the district court e rre d in 4

ref using to g rant his re quest for a downwar d depar

ture, pursua

nt to U.S.S .G. § 4A1.3(b) (1),
beca use the district cour

t rec og nized that it had authority to depar t but chose not to do so based on the par ticular c ircumstance s of Erland’ s case . See United States v. Or teg a, 358 F .3d 1278, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (stating that a district cour t’s ref usal to g rant a

downwar d depar

ture is
unrevie wable on a

ppeal unless the district c ourt err oneously believed it lac ked author ity to gr ant
a downwa

rd depa rture)

.

5q u a l i f

i e d f o r t h e t w o

- l e v e l i n c r e a s e

. I d

. a t 1 1 6 8

. 5

F i n a l l y , E r l a n d ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e

a m o u n t o f c o u r t

- o r d e r e d r e s t i t u t i o n i s m o o t

. A l t h o u g h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n i t i a l l y

o r d e r e d E r l a n d t o p a y $ 1 1 9

, 4 3 4

. 1 3 i n r e s t i t u t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d E r l a n d ’ s

p o s t

- s e n t e n c i n g m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , r e c a l c u l a t e d t h e r e s t i t u t i o n a m o u n t a n d

i s s u e d a n a m e n d e d j u d g m e n t o r d e r i n g r e s t i t u t i o n i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 5 4

, 7 3 1

. 0 0

. 6

F o r a l l t h e s e r e a s o n s , w e a f f i r m E r l a n d ’ s 2 1

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e

.

A F F I R M E D

.

The two-le vel incre ase f

or violating a prior judicia l order w as codifie d at U.S.S.G 5 § 2B1.1( b)(7) (C)(2002) at the time that Philli ps was dec ided.

Contrary to Erland’s a ssertion in his reply brief, the district court had jurisdiction to rule 6

on Erland’ s Dec ember

21, 2008 motion for rec onsideration of the restitution calculation eve n though E rland filed his notice of appe al on the same day . Although a motion for rec onsideration is not one of the tolling motions expressly listed in Fede ral Rule of A ppellate Proc edure 4(b)( 3),
we ha ve conc luded that “the timely filing of such a motion in a cr iminal action tolls t he time for filing a notice of a

ppeal a nd the time beg ins to run anew f ollowing disposition of the motion.”
United States v. Vica

ria, 963 F .2d 1412, 1413-14 (11th Cir. 1992). Er land’s motion for

rec onsideration wa s timely filed bec ause it wa s filed within the ten-da y period for

filing a notice of appe al. See id. at 1414. Thus, the notice of appe al did not divest the district court of jurisdiction until the district court e ntere d its April 27, 2009 order g ranting Erland’ s motion for

rec onsideration.

6