T he Hon. H ar ol d A. Ack er m an, U ni t ed St at es D i st r i ct Judg e f or t he Di st r i ct of N ew Jer sey , si t t i ng b y * d e s i g n a ti o n . NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 07a0679n .06 Fi led : Sep te mb er 1 8, 20 07 No . 06- 3215 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. W ILLIE M OOR E, Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE SOU THER N DI STRIC T OF OH IO

Bef ore: B ATC H EL D ERa nd D AU GH TR EY , C i r c ui t J ud g es , an d AC KE R M AN , * Di str ict J udg e. PER C UR IA M. This ca se is before us for a sec ond t ime follo wing re m a nd for re sent encin g und er United S tates v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005 ). The defend ant , W illie Mo ore, ha d prev iou sl y

pl eaded g uil ty

to a tw o- counti nformati on c harg ing hi m w it h ar med b a n k ro b b e ry, in v i o l a t i o n o f 18 U.S .C . § 21 1 3 (a ) an d (d) , a n d us e of a f ire a rm du rin g a cr ime of v iol ence, i n v iol ati on of 18 U .S.C . § 924( c)

. The ple a w as entered i n ex chang e for the g ov er nment’ s a g re ement t o foreg o an ind ictment ag ainst M oore for eig ht ad dit ion al bank ro bber ies

.-2 -

Pr ior to his first sent enci ng heari ng , Moore fil ed an obj ect ion to his des ig nati on as a c areer offender in the pre- sent ence re por t but w as nev erthel ess sent enced as a c areer of fend er. Th e district judge calculate d the app licable sen ten c in g ra nge for the rob bery coun t as 188 -235 mon ths an d sen ten ced Mo o re t o 1 88 m ont hs on thatconviction. He impos ed a sent ence of 84 months , t he mandat or y min imum u nder

18 U .S.C . § 924( c) (1 )( A) (i i) , for the firear ms c onv icti on and ordered th at the tw o s entenc es be s er v ed conse cutively , for a tota l of 272 mon th s . O n a p p e a l, w e he ld the case in ab eyance in a n t i c i p a t i o n o f Book

er , af ter determi nin g that the distr ict cour t had appli ed the se ntenc ing g uid eli nes mandator il y , and l ater remande d f or

re- sent enci ng under

the re q uirements of that opi nio n. At the secon d sen ten cing hearing, the district cou rt again calculate d the app licable sent enci ng rang e for th e r o b ber y co nv icti on as 188- 235 mont hs but w ent b elo w the g uid eli nes and impos ed a sent ence of 13 7 months

. Added to the mandator y 84 mont hs for th e firear ms c onv icti on, t he re sulti ng se ntenc e tot ale d 221 months , w hic h w as 51 mo nth s less than the original sente nce. The defend antn ow argues tha t the district court (1 ) er re d i n s entenc ing hi m as a c areer of f e n d e r under

U nit ed St ates Sent enci ng Guide lines sectio n 4B1 .1; (2) shou ld have redu ced his cate gory VI crimina l history score to cat eg or

y V, becau se cat eg or

y VI ov ersta ted t he s er iou snes s o f his pr ior record and the likelihood of

recidiv ism; an d (3) erred by not“q uan tif y ing th e b a s is for its reduction in of fense lev el followi ng th e grant ing of t he Governme nt’s 5K1 .1 m otion .” The result, Moore argues, is an un reaso nab le sent ence und er Book er.-3 -

Mo or e arg u e s t h a th e s h o u l d n o th a v e b e e n s e n t e n c e d a s a c a re e r o ffe n der becau se his tw o pr ior felony conv icti ons w ere “rela ted” under Appl ic ati on N ote 3 to sec ti on 4A1.2 of the g uid eli nes and, therefore, coul d notbe con sidered s eparate o ff enses for sent enci ng pur poses . How ev er , pr ior offenses ca n be cons ide re d re lat ed onl y i f they “ (A ) occurred on the same occasion , (B) w ere part of a single com mo n schem e or plan, or (C ) w ere c onsol ida ted for

tr ial or se nten cing .” U .S. Senten ci ng Gui del ine s M anual § 4A 1.2 cmt. n.3. The pr ior

co nv icti ons in thi s c ase, al thoug h the y oc cur re d onl y

a mont h apar

t and w ere handl ed i n a s ing le sent enci ng hear ing , do not fall int o any of t he th re e c ateg or ies se t out i n the appl ic ati on note. Hen ce, there w as no er ro r in the sent enci ng in thi s re g ard. The district court correctly foun d tha t Moore’s prior convictions w ere for “separat e an d distinct offen s es ” an d no te d: “ M erel y be c au s e th e s en te nc i ng for tw o c as es o c c urs o n th e s am e day and m erely beca use o ne se nte nce refers to the othe r . . . doe s not in th is Court’s opin ion m ake t h e m c o nsolida ted for purpo ses of trial or sent encin g.” United State s v. Horn , 355 F. 3d 610, 615 (6 th Ci r. 2004)

. Mo re ov er , “o ff enses are not neces sar il y rela ted me rely beca use th ey w ere com mi t t e d wi t h in a short pe riod of time. ” Id. at 615 ( aff ir ming sent ence based on d is tr ict c our t’ s d eter minat ion thatco nv icti ons for tw o ar med robber ies in grocery store parking lots that ha d occu rred “w eeks a part” w ere no t “related ”). As for th e di str ict c our

t’ s re jecti on of the defendant’ s req uestfor a reduct ion i n the his cr imi nal hi sto ry

sc ore, w e may re v iew the deni al of a dow nw ard depar ture “ onl y

i f the dis tr ict c our

t i ncorre ct ly

bel iev ed th at i t l ack ed th e aut hor ity to g ra nt s uch a depar

ture as a ma tter of

la w .” United S tates

v. Sm it h , 278 F .3d 6 05, 6 09 ( 6th C ir . 200 2) ( ci tati ons om itted ). H ere, th ere is no con ten tion th at th e district court erron eou sly believe d t h at it-4 -

lacked the au tho rity

to granta downw ard de partu re. To the con trary , w hen the district court overruled Moore ’s motio n for such a de p a rt u re a t his f irst senten cing hearing, it e xp li c it ly “ re c o gn ize [ d ]

. . . [ it s ] a u t h o ri t y t o d e p a rtd o wn wa rd o n a cr im in a l h is t o ry c a t e go ry” but conc lud ed that “to ex er ci se that author ity in this case w oul d [not] b e a w is e us e of the Court’s discretion .” Mo ore’s cl aim that the d is tr ict c our t er re d by

not ex pla ini ng w hy

i t granted him no more than a “ tw enty

percentreduct ion i n the o ff ense lev el” for s ubst anti al ass is tanc e under section 5K1. 1 is likew ise unreview able . As w e ha v e previously h eld, “[when], a s in this cas e, t he di str ict c our

t g ra nts a dow nw ard depar ture for subs tanti al ass is tanc e and the defendant’ s c l a i m o n a p p e a l g o e s o n l y t o t h e e xt e n to f t h e d e p a rt u re , t h i s C o u rth a s no jurisdiction over the ap pea l.” United S tates v. Jo nes , 417 F .3 d 5 4 7 , 5 5 1 ( 6th C ir . 200 5) (c it ati ons omit ted)

. Mo re ov er , t he di str ict cou rt d id , in fact, put i ts re asons for t he extent of the depa rt ure on the rec ord at the s entenc ing hear ing

. It is no g ro und for re v ersal that the defend antdoe s not agree wi th th ose rea sons. W e hav e rev iew ed th e defendant’ s s entenc e under the Book

er reason able ness sta ndard and the c ri ter ia setout in 18 U.S. C. § 3553( a) , and w e concl ude t hat t here i s n o basis for overturning i t. Th e judgme nt is there fore AFFIRMED.