# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 12 48

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mar k F ue hr er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Dub uq ue

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 23 , 20 16 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 28 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, MELLOY , and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

Mar k Fu eh r er pl ed gu il ty t o on e co un t of po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e

a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e, m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d
84 1( b) (1 )(B)

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Fu eh rer to 18 8 mo n t h s ’ im pr is on m en t. 1

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de
, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.On ap pe al
, Fu eh rer ch al le ng es th e s e a rch of hi s ve hi cl e an d as se rts th at th e di st ric t

co ur t er red in sen te nc in g h im as a care er o ffen de r. W e aff irm.

I.

In Decem be r 20 14
, Jo sh Mu ln ix
, a Sp eci al Age nt wit h th e Io wa Div is io n of
Narco ti cs Enfo rcem en t, rece iv ed in fo rm at io n fro m a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t th at Fu eh rer was di st rib ut in g m et ha m ph et am in e. The in fo rm an t ha d se en Fu eh rer wit h

m et ha m ph et am in e at hi s res id en ce an d to ld Age nt Mu ln ix t ha t Fu eh rer’s

m et ha m ph et am in e so ur ce was “ Mar ty.” A f te r ob ta in in g th is in fo rm at io n, Age nt Mu ln ix ob ta in ed jud ic ia l au th or iz at io n to affi x a gl ob al po si ti on in g syste m (“ GPS”)

tra ck in g d ev ic e to Fu eh rer’s v eh ic le

.

W hi le th e GPS d ev ic e was affi xe d to Fu eh rer’s ve hi cl e, Fu eh rer dr ov e to th e ho m e of Mar ti n Lawren ce in Mo nt ic el lo
, Io wa. In ve st ig at or s le arn ed th at Lawren ce

was be in g in ve st ig at ed by th e Dru g Enfo rcem en t Adm in i s tra ti on in Ced ar Rap id s, whi ch ha d co nd uc te d m

ul ti pl e co nt ro ll ed pu r c h a s es of ic e m et ha m ph et am in e fro m Lawren ce.

In Ja nu ary 20 15
, of

fic ers ob se rv ed Fu eh rer dr iv in g a se co nd v e h i c le

. Age nt Mu ln ix ob ta in ed au th or iz at io n to at ta ch a GPS de vi c e to th at ve hi cl e an d be ga n
tra ck in g th at ve hi cl e as well

. In ve s t i g a t o r s be li ev ed th at Fu eh rer wou ld be

tra ns po rti ng m et ha m

ph et am in e from L aw

re nc e’ s ho m e on Ja nu ary 11
, 20 15

. Offi cers in te nd ed to at te m

pt to co nd uc t a tra ffi c st o p o n F u e hr er’s ve hi cl e aft er he le ft
Lawren ce’s home. Offi cers al so be li ev ed th at , ev en if Fu eh rer co m m it te d no tra ffi c vi ol at io n, of

fic ers wou ld m ak e an in ve st ig at or y st op ba se d on th e ev id en ce ga th ered du rin g t he in ve st ig at io n.

Age nt Mu ln ix co or di na te d wi th th e Dub uq ue Dru g Task Fo rce t o e ns ur e th at of fic ers wou ld be ab le to ob se rv e Fu eh rer’s ve hi cl e aft er leav in g Lawren ce’s ho m e.

-2

-Dep ut y Ada m W il li am s was po si ti on ed to ob se rv e Fu eh r e r’s ve hi cl e an d be ga n

ru nn i n g a s t at io na ry rad ar, whi ch he ha d be en tra in ed to us e an d di d, in fact
, us e

ne arl y ev ery da y

. Dep ut y W il li am s st op pe d Fu eh rer’s ve hic le af ter ob se rv in g Fu eh rer dr iv in g 6 6 m il es pe r ho ur in an area wher e th e sp eed li m it was 6 5 m il es pe r ho ur

.

Dur in g th e tra ffi c st op , Fu eh rer was un ab le to p r o v i de a li cen se

. Dep ut y W il li am s as ke d Fu eh rer to si t in th e pa tro l car whi le he co m pl et ed pa pe rwo rk fo r th e
tra ffi c vi ol at io n. Dur in g th is ti m e, a se co nd de pu ty, Dep ut y Kearn ey , arri ve d wit h a
tra in ed na rco ti cs can in e. Depu ty Kear ne y co nd uc te d an op en -ai r sn iff of F ue hr er’s

ve hi cl e an d th e can in e al ert ed to th e pr es en ce of na rco ti cs

. Afte r th e do g- sn iff se arch

was co m pl et e, Dep ut y W il li am s fin is he d th e ta sk s rel at ed to th e tra ffi c st op an d wro te F u eh rer a warn in g fo r th e tra ffi c vi ol at io n. Dep ut ie s W il li am s an d Kea r n e y t h e n in fo rm ed Fu eh rer th at th e can in e ha d al ert ed to th e pr es en ce of na rco ti cs , an d Dep ut y W il li am s ga ve Fu eh rer hi s Mi ran da warn in gs

. Offi cers se a r c h e d t he ve hi cl e an d 2
fo un d 2 6.0 9 g ram s o f m et ha m ph et am in e.

Fu eh rer was ch arg ed wit h po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e a co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e. Befo re tri al , Fue hr er fi le d a m ot io n t o s up pr es s, ar gu in g t ha t t he st op of hi s ve hi cl e was a pr et ex t st op in vi ol at io n o f h is Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s ag ai ns t

un reas on ab le se a r c h an d se iz ur e. At th e su pp res si on he ari ng , Dep ut y W il li am s
te st ifi ed as to th e accu racy of th e rad ar he use d th e ni gh t of the tra ffi c st op

. Dep ut y W il li am s tes ti fie d th at th e rad ar was affi xe d to th e pa tro l car he dr ov e ev ery da y fo r
ap pr ox im at el y si x y ears

. Dep ut y W il li am s st at ed th at he ch eck ed th e accu racy of th e rad ar by ba la nc in g th e sp eed di sp la y ed by th e rad ar wit h th e sp eed di sp la y ed on th e
sp eed om et er of hi s ve hi cl e. If he de te ct ed a di sc rep an cy , Dep ut y W il li am s wou ld us e

an ot he r m et ho d to ch eck th e rad ar’s accu racy. Dep ut y W il li am s al so te st ifi ed th at th e rad ar ha d ne ve r ha d an y di sc rep an ci es si nc e he be ga n us in g it an d th at “ [i]t wor ks th e

Mi ran da v. Ari zo na , 38 4 U.S. 4 36 (19 66 ). 2

-3

-way it is su pp o s ed to an d di sp la y s accu rat e in fo rm at io n.” The m ag is tra te jud ge 3

r e c o mm en de d de nyin g th e m ot io n, fin di ng th at th e tra ffi c st op was su pp or te d b y
pr ob ab le cau se th at Fu eh rer was dr iv in g in ex ces s of th e sp eed li m it

. The m ag is tra te jud ge al so fo un d th at th ere was no ev id en ce th at th e do g sn iff pr ol on ge d th e tra ffi c
st op

. The di st ric t co ur t su bs eq ue nt ly ad opt ed the m ag ist ra te j udge ’ s reco m

m en da ti on

.

Fo ll owi ng th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to su pp res s, Fu eh rer en te red a gu il ty pl ea. The pr ob at io n of

fic e pr ep ared a pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (“ PSR” ), whi ch de si gn at ed Fu eh rer as a care er of fen de r. As a care er of

fen de r, Fu eh rer’s ba se of

fen se le ve l in crea se d f

r o m l e v e l 26 to le ve l 34

. The PSR de te rm in ed th at Fu eh rer was a

care er of fen de r ba se d on two pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of fen se s. On
D e c e mber 3, 19 98
, Fu eh rer was arre st ed fo r po ss es si ng co cai ne wit h in te nt t o d i s t r i b u t e. Fu eh rer pl ed gu il ty in st at e co ur t an d was se nt en ced on Sep te m be r 10
, 19 99

. On May 25
, 20 00
, Fu eh rer was arre st ed fo r th e di st rib ut io n of co cai ne ba se in

co nt ro ll ed pu rch as es fro m Octo be r 21
, 1 9 9 8 ; Octo be r 26
, 19 98 ; an d Decem be r 21
, 19 98

. Fu eh rer was in di ct ed in th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Io wa an d pl ed gu il ty to Co un t 1, whi ch in vo lv ed di st rib ut io n of co cai ne ba se o n Octo be r 21
, 19 98

. Fu eh rer was

se nt en ced on Aug us t 2 0, 2 00 1.

Fu eh rer ob

jecte d t o h i s de si gn at io n as a care er of fen de r. He arg ue d th at th e
pr io r co nt ro ll ed -s ub st an ce co nv ic t i o n s w ere rel at ed an d sh ou ld no t be co un te d

se pa rat el y

. The di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d th e care er of fen de r en ha nc em en t an d se nt en ced
Fu eh rer t o 1 88 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

The Hon or ab le Jo n S. Sco le s, Uni te d St at es Ch ie f Mag is tr a t e J u d g e fo r th e 3 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-4

-II.

A. Fueh rer’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t Ri gh ts

“ Thi s Co ur t rev ie ws th e fact s su pp or ti ng a d is tri ct co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n
to su pp res s fo r cl ear erro r an d rev ie ws it s le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo .” Uni te d St at es

v. Co tt on , 78 2 F.3 d 39 2, 39 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). “ Thi s co ur t wil l affi rm th e di st ric t

co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce un le ss it is un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce, ba se d on an erro ne ou s in te rp ret at io n of ap pl ic ab le la w, or , ba se d on th e

en ti re reco rd
, it is cl ear a m is ta ke was m ad e.” Uni te d St at es v. Hog an , 53 9 F.3 d 91 6,
92 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ann is
, 44 6 F.3 d 8 5 2
, 85 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )).

1. Th e Traff ic Sto p

Fu eh rer co nt en ds th at th e t r a ffi c st op in th is cas e was m erel y pr et ex tu al

.

“ Pret ex tu al tra ffi c st op s are a vi ol at io n of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Eld rid ge , 98 4 F.2 d 94 3, 94 7 (8 th Ci r

. 1 9 9 3 ). Howev er, if po li ce ob se rv e a tra ffi c vi ol at io n, no m at te r ho w m in or , th ere is pr ob ab le cau se to st op th e ve hi cl e. Uni te d
S t a t e s v

. M en do za, 67 7 F.3 d 82 2, 82 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); Eld rid ge , 98 4 F.2 d at 94 8

.

“ Su bjec ti ve in te nt io ns pl ay no rol e in or di na ry , p ro ba bl e-ca us e Fo ur th Am en dm en t

an al y si s.” W hr en v. Uni te d St at es , 51 7 U.S. 80 6, 81 3 (1 99 6)

. “ Onc e an of fic er ha s
pr ob ab le cau se , th e st op is ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le an d an y ul te rio r m ot iv at io n on th e of fic er’s pa rt is irr el ev an t.” Uni te d St at es v. Fras he r, 6 3 2 F

. 3 d 45 0, 45 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ Si m il arl y, i t i s i r rel ev an t th at th e of fic er wou ld ha ve ig no red th e v io la ti on bu t fo r hi s u lt eri or m ot iv e.” Id

.

Bec au se Dep ut y W il li am s ha d an ob jecti ve ly reas o n ab le ba si s to be li ev e Fu eh rer was sp eed in g, Dep ut y W il li am s ha d pr ob ab le cau se fo r th e tra ffi c st op

. See Uni te d St at es v. Co ne y , 4 56 F

. 3 d 8 5 0
, 85 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ W e co m pl et el y ag ree . . . tha t [t he off

ic er] had pro ba bl e cau se to st op th e . . . va n be cau se he ob jecti ve ly

-5

-ha d a reas on ab l e b a s i s fo r be li ev in g th at th e va n was sp eed in g.” ). Su ch pr ob ab le

cau se ex is te d reg ard le ss of an y m ot iv at io n to se arch fo r dr ug s. Fu eh rer arg ue s th at th ere was no pro ba bl e cau se be cau se of t he st an da rd de vi at io n o n ra da r eq ui pm en t of at le as t on e m il e pe r ho ur

. At th e su pp res si on he ari ng , Dep ut y W il li am s te st ifi ed th at he rece iv ed tra in in g i n t he us e o f st at io na ry rad ar an d t ha t, p rio r to joi ni ng th e dr ug ta sk fo rce, he us ed st at io na ry rad ar ne arl y ev ery da y

. Dep ut y W il li am s st at ed he was as si g n e d t o hi s pa tro l ve hi cl e in 20 09 an d th e rad ar ha s be en affi xe d to th e

ve hi cl e’s da sh an d win ds hi el d th e en ti re ti m e. F u r t h e r, Dep ut y W il li am s te st ifi ed th at he ch eck ed th e accu racy of th e rad ar he us ed th e ni gh t of th e tra ffi c st op earl ie r th at da y an d ha d no reas on to be li ev e th e rad ar was no t fu nc ti on in g co rrec tl y

. Fi na ll y , th e st an da rd de vi at io n of rad ar eq ui pm en t th at Fu eh rer rel ie s on is as so ci at ed wit h th e tu ni ng fo rk m et ho d of te st in g th e rad ar, whi ch Dep ut y W il li am s di d no t us e th e d ay of th e tr affi c st op . As a res ul t, Dep ut y W il li am s’ ob se rv at io n o f th e tr affi c vi ol at io n ba se d on hi s us e of th e rad ar ga ve hi m pr ob ab le cau se to st op th e ve hi cl e,

an d h is su bjec ti ve in te nt to de ta in th e v eh ic le for a do g- sn iff sea rch is irr el ev an t.

2. Th e Dog Sn iff

Fu eh rer arg ue s th at he was un co ns ti tu ti on al ly de ta in ed whi le of fic ers ex ecu te d th e do g sn iff

. “ [I]f a de fen da nt is de ta in ed in ci de nt to a tra ffi c st op , th e of fic er do es

no t ne ed reas on ab le su sp ic io n to co nt in ue th e de te nt io n un ti l th e pu rp os e of th e tra ffi c
st op ha s be en co m

pl et ed .” Uni te d St at es v. Ova nd o- Garzo
, 75 2 F.3 d 11 61
, 11 63 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bu en o, 44 3 F.3 d 10 17
, 10 25 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). An of fic er may c om

pl et e ro ut in e ta sk s du rin g a tra ffi c st op , whi ch “ can in cl ud e ‘a co m pu te riz e d c h eck of th e ve hi cl e’s reg is tra ti on an d th e dr iv er’s l ic en se an d cri m in al hi st or y , as well as th e pr ep arat io n of a ci ta ti on or

warn in g.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Qui nt ero -Fel ix
, 71 4 F.3 d 56 3, 56 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )). “ Howev er, on ce an of fic er fin is he s th e ta sk s as so ci at e d w i t h a tra ffi c st op , ‘the pu rp os e of th e tra ffi c st op is co m pl et e an d fu rth er de te nt io n

. . . wou ld be

un reas on ab le un le ss so m et hi ng th at oc cu rred du rin g th e tra ffi c st op ge ne rat ed th e

-6

-ne ces sa ry reas on ab le su sp ic io n t o jus ti fy fu rth er de te nt io n[ .] ’” Id

. at 11 63 –6 4

(al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. F l o r e s , 47 4 F.3 d 11 00
, 11 03 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )).

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at “ th e us e of a well -tr ai ne d na rco ti cs -d et ect io n do g . . . du rin g a lawf

ul tra ffi c st op , ge ne ral ly do es no t i m pl ic at e le gi ti m at e p riv acy in te res ts .” Ill in oi s v. Cab al le s, 54 3 U.S. 40 5, 40 9 (2 00 5)

. “ A se iz ur e th at is jus ti fie d

so le ly b y th e in te res t in is su in g a warn in g ti ck et to th e dr iv er can be c o me un la wfu l if it is pr ol on ge d be y on d th e ti m e reas on ab ly req ui red to co m pl et e th at m is si on .” Id

. at 40 7. Thu s, as lo ng as a tra ffi c st op is no t ex te nd ed in or de r fo r of fic ers to co nd uc t a d og sn iff

, th e d og sn iff

is lawf ul

.

In th is cas e, Dep ut y Kearn ey arri ve d wi th in two m in ut es of Dep ut y W il li am s in it ia ti ng th e tra ffi c st op

. Bec au se Fu eh rer di d no t hav e a li cen se , Dep ut y W il li am s

as ke d Fu eh rer to si t in th e pa tro l car whi le he co m pl et ed pa pe rwo rk

. Dep ut y Kearn ey

co nd uc te d th e do g sn iff w h i l e Fu eh rer was in th e pa tro l car. Dep ut y W il li am s

co m pl et ed th e ta sk s rela te d to th e tra ffi c st op an d wrot e Fu eh rer a warni ng aft er the do g sn iff was co m

pl et e an d th e do g ha d al ert ed to th e pr es en ce of n a rco ti cs

. Thu s, th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th at th e d og sn iff un la wfu ll y

pro lo ng ed th e tr affi c st op be y on d wha t was ne ces sa ry to co m pl et e th e st op

. Fu eh rer’s rel ia nc e on Ro dr ig ue z v. Uni te d
St at es , 1 35 S. Ct . 1 60 9 (2 0 1 5 )
, i s m is pl aced

. In Ro dr ig ue z, th e of fic er ha d al read y is su ed th e dr iv er a warn in g be fo re co nd uc ti ng th e do g- sn iff se arch

. Id

. at 16 13

. The
Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at th e se arch was un la wfu l be cau se it pr ol on ge d th e tra ffi c st op
at is su e in th at cas e. Id . a t 16 15 –1 6. The fact s jus t se t fo rth di st in gu is h th e i ns ta nt

cas e fro m Ro dr ig ue z.

B. Sen te nc in g

Fu eh rer arg ue s th at hi s two pr io r co nv ic ti on s are r e l a t e d un de r U.S.S.G. § 4A1 .2(a )(2 ) an d, th us , he do es n o t qu al ify as a care er of fen de r. “ W e rev ie w de

-7

-no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s co ns tru ct io n an d in te rp ret at io n of th e cri m in al hi st or y

pr ov is io ns of th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , an d we rev ie w fo r cl ear erro r th e di st ric t

co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e gu id el in es to th e fact s.” Un i t e d St at es v. W il li am s, 53 3
F.3 d 67 3, 67 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bo rer, 41 2 F.3 d 98 7, 99 1– 92 (8 th Cir . 20 05 )).

Und er t he Gui de li ne s, a d efen da nt is a care er o ffen de r if

(1 ) th e de fen da nt was at le as t ei gh te en y ears ol d at th e ti m e of th e in st an t co nv ic ti on ; (2 ) th e in st an t o f fen se of

co nv ic ti on is a fel on y th at is ei th er a c r i m e of vi ol en ce or

a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of

fen se ; an d (3 ) th e de fen da nt ha s at l e as t two pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s of ei th er a cri m e o f vi ol en ce o r a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e o ffen se

.

U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 (a). Pri or co nv ic ti on s m us t be co un te d se pa rat el y to sa ti sf y th e “ two
pr io r fel on y

co nv ic ti on s” req ui rem en t. Id . § 4 B1 .2(c ).

Pri or se nt en ces al way s are co un te d se pa rat el y if th e
se nt en ce s were im

po se d fo r of

fen se s th at were se pa rat ed by

an in te rv en in g arre st (i.e
., th e de fen da nt is arre st ed fo r th e fir st of fen se pr io r to co m

m it ti ng th e se co nd of

f e n s e )

. If th ere is no in te rv en in g arre st , p rio r s e n t en ces are co un te d

se pa rat el y un le ss (A) th e se nt en ces res ul te d fro m of fen se s
co nt ai ne d in th e sa m e ch arg in g in st ru m en t; or ( B ) th e
se nt en ces were im

po se d on th e sa m e da y

. Treat an y pri or
se nt en ce co ve red by (A) or (B) as a si ng le sen te nc e.

Id . § 4 A1.2 (a)( 2)

.

Fu eh rer co m

m it te d th e fed eral pr ed ic at e of fen se on Octo be r 21
, 19 98 an d th e
st at e pr ed ic at e of

fen se on Decem

be r 3, 19 98

. F u e h r e r was arre st ed fo r th e st at e of fen se on Decem

be r 3, 19 98
, bu t was no t arre st ed on th e fed eral of fen se un ti l May
2 5, 20 00

. As a res ul t, hi s two pr io r of fen se s are no t se pa rat ed by an in te r v e n i n g

-8

-arre st

. See Wi l l i a ms , 5 3 3 F.3 d at 67 6– 77

. Fu rth er, th e Gov ern m en t co nc ed es th at

th ere was no in te rv en in g a rres t.

Bec au se th ere was no in te rv en in g arre st , we co ns id er whe th er Fu eh rer’s pr io r

se nt en ces “ res ul te d fro m of fen se s co nt ai ne d in th e sa m e ch arg in g in st ru m en t” or

“ were im po se d on th e sa m e da y .” See U.S.S.G. § 4A1 .2(a )(2 ). Fu eh rer was ch arg ed in se pa rat e ch arg in g in st ru m en ts , on e in st at e co ur t an d on e in fed eral co ur t. Fu rth er, Fu eh rer’s se nt en ces fo r hi s pr io r co nv ic ti o n s were im po se d on di ffer en t da y s. Fu eh rer’s se nt en ce fo r hi s s t a t e co nv ic ti on was im po se d on Sep te m

be r 10
, 19 99

. Fu eh rer’s s en te nc e fo r hi s fede ral co nv ic ti on was im po se d on Aug us t 20 , 20 01 . As

a res ul t, th es e two co nv ic ti on s sh ou ld be co un te d se pa rat el y a s two pr io r fel on y

co nv ic ti on s fo r co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e o ffen se s.

Fu eh rer n ev ert he le ss arg ue s th at hi s two pri or co nv ic ti on s sh ou ld be co un te d

to ge th er be cau se th ey were pa rt of a si ng le co ur se of co nd uc t. Fu eh rer as se rts th at th e

co nd uc t un de rlyin g hi s st at e co nv ic ti on was pa rt of th e sa m e cri m in a l s c h e me, an d

was co m m it te d du rin g th e sa m e ti m e pe rio d, as th e fed eral of fen se

. Thu s, Fu e h r er cl ai m s hi s st at e co nv ic ti on was rel ev an t to hi s fed eral co nv ic ti on an d th ey sh ou ld be

co un te d to ge th er. Thi s argu m en t, ho wev er, is bas ed on an erro ne ou s read in g of the Gui de li ne s an d i gn or es th e st rai gh tfo rward ap pl ic at io n o f U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.2 (a)( 2)

.

Fu eh rer cl ai m s sp eci fic al l y t h at , un de r U.S.S.G. § 4A1 .2(a )(1 ), hi s fed eral

co nv ic ti on in 20 01 is th e “ in st an t offe ns e” and th at th e co nd uc t un de rlyin g hi s st at e

co nv ic ti on in 19 99 was pa rt of th e “ in st an t of fen se .” Howev er, un de r th e Gui de li ne s,

“ in st an t of

fen se ” refe rs to th e c ur ren t of fen se fo r whi ch a de fen da nt is be in g

se nt en ced

. U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 cm t. n.1 (H). In th e co nt ex t of th e c a r e e r

- o ffen de r

an al y si s, a pr io r se nt en ce wil l no t be co un te d if it is fo r co nd uc t rel ev an t to th e in st an t of fen se . See i d. § 4A1 .2 cm t. n .1.

-9

-In th is cas e, Fu eh rer’s “ in st an t of fen se ” is po ss es si on of m et ha m ph et am in e on Ja nu ary 1 1, 20 15

. Fu eh rer’s pr io r st at e an d fed eral co nv ic ti on s, in 1 9 9 9 a n d 20 01
,
res pe ct iv el y , fo r di st rib ut in g crac k co cai ne do no t in vo lv e th e sa m e un d e r l y in g

co nd uc t a s h i s 20 15 po ss es si on of m et ha m ph et am in e. Thu s, ne it he r co nv ic ti on is rel ev an t to th e “ in st an t of fen se .” Fu eh rer’ s a r g um en t in co rrec tl y ap pl ie s th e Gui de li ne s. As a res ul t, ba se d on th e co rrec t care er-o ffen de r an a l ys i s , Fu eh rer ha s
two qu al ifyin g pr io r co nv ic ti on s. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err by se nt en ci ng Fu eh rer

as a care er o ffen de r.

III.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-