FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT APRI L9, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10621

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 0 4 4 - CR- 4 - RH / W CS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J U A N C A R L O S R I C H A R D S O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 9, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , C A R N E S an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J ua n C a r l os R i c ha r ds on a ppe a l s the m a nda t or y l i f e s e nt e nc e i m pos e d upon h im d u e to a s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n t b a s e d o n tw o p r io rf e lo n y d ru g o f

f e n s e s .In Augus t 20 07 , th edis tric t c ourt gra nte d a motion fi le d b y theg ov e rnme nt p ur su ant t o 1 Fe deral Rule of Criminal Procedure35(b) a nd entered an order reducingRichardson’s sentence to a total of 204 months. Be causethis appeal wa s pendingat the time, the district cour t lacked jurisdiction to consider the g overnme nt’s Rule 35 motion. S ee United States v. Russell, 776 F.2d 955, 956 ( 11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam); see also United States v. Turchen, 187 F.3d 735, 743 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Batka, 916 F.2d 118, 120 ( 3d Cir. 1990). Acc ording ly , the order reduc ing sentenceis a nullity and of no le g al ef

fec t. There fore , the orig inal judgment and commitment order still presents an “ active c ase or controve rsy” as to whe ther the district c ourt erred in sentenc ing Richa rdson to a mandatory

minimumsentenc e of lifein prison. See Soliman v. United States ex rel I

NS, 296 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) ( quotation and citation omitted). 2 R i char dson ar gu es thattw o d rug sal es , w hi ch occurre d w i thi n o ne ho ur and fi ft ee n m in u te s o f

e a c h o th e ro n a s in g le a f te r n o o n b u t w e r e p r o s e c u te d a s s e p a r a te of f e ns e s , oughtnott o ha ve c ount e d a s tw o pr i orc onvi c t i ons f orthe purpos e of

21 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . We A F F I R M. 1 I . B AC KG RO UN D A f e d e r a l g r a n d ju r y in d ic te d R ic h a r d s o n in A u g u s t 2 0 0 6 , c h a r g in g h im w ith s e ve n of f e ns e s i nc l udi ng: ( C ount1) c ons pi r a c y t o m a nuf a c tur e , di s tr i but e , a nd po ss es s w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne and m ore than fi fty ( 50 ) gra m s of c ra ck c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) , 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) , a nd 846; ( C ount s 2- 4) di s tr i but i on of c r a c k c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a n d 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) ; ( C o u n t 5 ) p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to m a n u f a c tu r e a n d d is tr ib u te c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) ; ( C ount6) pos s e s s i on of

a S m i th & W e s s on . 38- c a l i be rr e vol ve ri n f ur the r a nc e of

the drug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e a l l e ge d i n C ount1, i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ; a nd3

( C o u n t 7 ) b e in g a p r e v io u s ly c o n v ic te d f e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

th a t f ir e a r m a n d its a m m u n itio n , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) a n d 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . S u b s e q u e n t to R i c ha r ds on’ s i ni t i a l a ppe a r a nc e a nd a r r a i gnm e nt , the gove r nm e ntf i l e d a not i c e of h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n s a s r e q u ir e d b y 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 5 1 , 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) . T he gove r nm e nt ’ s I nf

or m a t i on a nd N ot i c e of

P r i orC onvi c t i ons a s s e r t e d tha t , f or enhancem entun der 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (b)( 1)(A ), i tw ou l d p rove t hatR i char dson had tw i ce b een co n v i ct ed o n 1 A p ri l 1 9 9 9 , i n G ad sd en C o u n ty, F l o ri d a, “ o f th e o ffen se of S al e of C ocai ne. ” R 1-16 at1. T he go vernm entl i st ed the ca se nu m ber f or ea ch c o n v i c t i o n : Ca s e N u mb e r9 9 - 6 6 - CFA f o rth e f i r s ta n d Ca s e N u mb e r9 9 - 6 9 - CFA f o rth e s e c o n d . I d . I n N ove m be r2006, R i c ha r ds on pl e d gui l ty t o a l l s e ve n c ount s i n the i nd i ctm entpu rs uantt o a pl ea agre em ent . T hi s a gree m entse tforth t he po t ent i al se nt ence s he f

ac ed as t o eac h cou nt , i ncl ud i ng a m andat ory m i ni m um t er m of l i fe a s t o C ount1, a nd a m a xi m um t e r m of 30 y e a r s a s t o e a c h of

C ount s 2- 5 i n the e ve ntthe c our tde t e r m i ne d tha the ha d the r e qui s i t e pr i orqua l i f y i ng f e l ony drug c onvi c t i ons unde r21 U . S . C . §§ 841 a nd 851. T he a gr e e m e ntdi d nots t a t e tha tthe A p ri l 1 9 9 9 co n v i ct i o n s w o u l d i n factso q u al i fy. I n pr e pa r i ng the P r e s e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i on R e por t( “ P S R ” ) , the pr oba t i on of f i c e ra s s um e d tha tthe e nha nc e d pe na l t i e s unde r§ 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) a ppl i e d a nd4

de t e r m i ne d tha tthe a ppl i c a bl e G ui de l i ne s r a nge f orC ount1 w a s l i f

e i m pr i s onm e nt beca use the m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence w as grea t erthan t he m axi m um t er m u n d e rth e G u id e lin e s . R ic h a r d s o n n o tif ie d th e p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e o f h is in te n tio n to o b j e c tt o th e e n h a n c e d p e n a l t i e s a p p l i e d t o h i s s e n t e n c e u n d e r2 1 U . S. C. §§ 84 1(b)(1)(A ) a nd 85 1. T he prob at i on offi ce r not ed thati f the di stri ctcourt de t e r m i ne d tha tR i c ha r ds on ha d onl y one pr i orc onvi c t i on f orpurpos e s of

the st atu t e, h i s G u i d el i n es ran g e w o u l d b e 2 6 2 -3 2 7 m o n th s. A f te rp le a d in g g u ilty , b u t b e f o r e s e n te n c in g , R ic h a r d s o n a s s e r te d th a t h is tw o p r e v io u s c o n v ic tio n s c o n s titu te d “a s in g le c r im in a l e p is o d e ” a n d s h o u ld the r e f or e be c ount e d a s onl y one pr i orc onvi c t i on. R 1- 33 a t1. H e s t a t e d tha ton 30 D ec em ber 199 8, l aw enforce m entoffi ce rs had p urchas ed t en do l l ar s w orth o f c ra ck c o c a in e f r o m h im a t h is h o m e . T h e s a m e o f f ic e r s h a d th e n r e tu r n e d a p p r o x im a te ly on e hou r a nd fi ft ee n m i nu t es l at erand p urchas ed anot her t en do l l ar s w orth o f c ra ck c oc a i ne . T he s t a t e f

i l e d a s e pa r a t e i nf

or m a t i on f

ore a c h of

the tw o s a l e s , a nd R i c ha r ds on pl e d gui l ty t o both. R i c ha r ds on c ont e nde d, how e ve r , tha tthe pr i or conv i ct i on s w er e a si ng l e c ri m i nal epi sode becaus e, he as se rt ed, the l aw e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r s le f t h is h o m e a f

te rm a k in g th e f

ir s t c r a c k c o c a in e p u r c h a s e to veri fy thatthe subst ance ob t ai ned w as coca i ne and, w hen t hey w er e c on vi nced t hat i tw a s , r e tur ne d t o R i c ha r ds on’ s hom e one houra nd f i f t e e n m i nut e s l a t e rt o m a ke5

the s e c ond pur c ha s e . C ons e que nt l y , R i c ha r ds on c onc l ude d, the tw o c onvi c t i ons s h o u ld b e c o n s id e r e d a s o n e . T h e g o v e r n m e n t a r g u e d th a t th e p r io rc o n v ic tio n s c o n s titu te d tw o s e p a r a te of f e ns e s , not i ng tha tm ul t i pl e s a l e s , m a de c l os e i n t i m e a nd t o the s a m e pe r s on, w e r e c om m on f

orc r a c k c oc a i ne de a l e r s . T he gove r nm e nta dde d tha t , e ve n i f the tw o drug s a l e s ha d be e n c ha r ge d i n the s a m e i nf or m a t i on, the y w oul d s t i l l ha ve co u n t ed as sep arat e co n v i ct i o n s. F i n al l y, th e g o v ern m en tassert ed th atth e p u rp o se of the enhancem entst atut e w ou l d b e m eti f R i char dson ’ s tw o con vi ct i on s w er e tr e a t e d s e pa r a t e l y be c a us e i tw oul d puni s h hi m f orc ont i nua l l y e nga gi ng i n the s a m e c r im in a l c o n d u c t. A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, R i c ha r ds on a ga i n a r gue d tha tthe tw o pr i ordrug offe nses shou l d b e tre at ed as a s i ng l e e pi sode and, there fore , no tbe coun t ed s e pa r a t e l y a ts e nt e nc i ng. H e c ont e nde d tha t , due t o the t e m por a l pr oxi m i ty of the tw o s a l e s , i tw a s “ l i ke l a w e nf or c e m e ntc om i ng t o the door , m a ki ng a buy a nd st andi ng ri gh tthere and aski ng them for the se cond bu y. ” R 4 at5. T he di stri ct c our t , ha vi ng r e vi e w e d the pl e a di ngs of the pa r t i e s , a nd he a r d the a r gum e nt s of c ouns e l , de t e r m i ne d tha tthe tw o pr i orc onvi c t i ons c ount e d a s s e pa r a t e drug f e l ony o f f e n s e s u n d e rth e m e a n in g o f § 8 4 1 . T h e c o u r t e x p la in e d th a t “th e s ta tu te C ongr e s s a dopt e d, a tl e a s ta s i tha s be e n i nt e rpr e t e d by the E l e ve nth C i r c ui ta nd,6

for thatm att er , ot her c i rc ui t s, i s thati tturns on w hether these ar e s epar at e c ri m es r a th e rth a n a s in g le e p is o d e , a n d m y c o n c lu s io n is th a t th e s e w e r e s e p a r a te offe nses , tw o com pl et el y s epar at e s al es . ” R 4 at13 . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt s e nt e nc e d R i c ha r ds on t o the m a nda t or y m i ni m um s e nt e nc e of l i f e i m pr i s onm e nton C ount1 a nd 262 m onths c onc ur r e nti m pr i s onm e nton C ount s 2- 5 a nd 7, a nd t o 60 m o n th s c o n s e c u tiv e im p r is o n m e n t o n C o u n t 6 . O n a p p e a l, R ic h a r d s o n a r g u e s th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t f a ile d to p r o v e th a t h is tw o 1 99 9 cra ck cocai ne offens e c on vi ct i on s c on st i tut ed tw o d i sc re t e c ri m i nal c onvi c t i ons . R i c ha r ds on not e s tha tthe tw o s a l e s oc c ur r e d onl y one houra nd f o u r te e n m in u te s a p a r t a n d in v o lv e d th e s a m e la w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r s , d e f e n d a n t, l oc a t i on, c onduc t , s ubs t a nc e , qua nt i ty , a r r e s t , a nd s e nt e nc e . H e c ons i de r s the g o v e r n m e n t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o p r o s e c u t e e a c h s a l e s e p a r a t e l y , r e s u l t i n g i n two conv i ct i on s, t o b e “ se nt ence m ani pu l at i on ” a nd urges us t o con si der that

“ m a ni pul a t i on” i n de t e r m i ni ng w he the rthe gove r nm e ntde m ons tr a t e d tha the i s the k in d o f r e c id iv is t C o n g r e s s in te n d e d to ta r g e t w ith th e m a n d a to r y lif e s e n te n c e . A p p e lla n t’s B r . a t 2 4 . I I . DI S CUS S I ON T i t l e 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (b)( 1)(A ) provi des thata def endantconv i ct ed un der tha ts e c t i on w ho ha s pr e vi ous l y be e n c onvi c t e d of tw o orm or e f

e l ony drugRic ha rd so n also argue s th at th eg ov e rnme nt w a s r e qu ir e d to prov e“be yon d a re a so na ble 2 do ub t”that th etw o p ri or

c onvic tio ns wereunre late d. Hec onte nd s th at whil etheg ov e rnme nt, under A lmendare z-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. C t. 1219 (1998), is not require d to prove the e x istence of

prior convic tions beyond a re asonabledoubt, that holding does not e xten d to fac ts a

bo ut p ri or c onvic tio ns , s uc h a s th e ir re late dn e ss, and

that th eg ov e rnme nt m

us t there fo reprov ere late dn e ss b e yon d a re a so na bledo ub t. This argument i s unavaili ng . T hefa c ts of Richardson’s prior c onvictions are not in dispute; both parties agreewith respec t to the essential underlying f

acts. Rather , the dispute in this case c enter s on the leg al question of whether , under § 841(b)(1) (A), a s interpre ted by our circuit, those facts render Richa rdson’s prior convic tions related. 7 o f f e n s e s s h a ll b e s e n te n c e d to lif e im p r is o n m e n t. F o ra d e f e n d a n t to b e s u b

je c t to thi s e nh ance d sent ence , the go vernm entm ustfi l e, pri or t o t he ent ry of a gui l ty pl ea or the com m ence m entof tri al , an i nform at i on st at i ng the pri or conv i ct i on s r el i ed up on t o sup po rtthe enhancem ent . 21 U . S . C . § 8 51 (a )( 1). If the defendantdeni es the va l i di ty of

a pr i orc onvi c t i on, ordi s put e s a ny of the de t a i l s of

a pr i or c o n v i c t i o n , h e mu s tf

i l e a w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e c h a l l e n g i n g th e s a me . 2 1 U . S. C. § 851( c ) ( 1) . T he gove r nm e ntha s the bur de n of pr oof be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt on a ny i s s ue of

f a c tr a i s e d by the de f

e nda nt . I d. ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a nc he z , 138 F . 3d 1410, 1416 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . H e r e , R i c ha r ds on ha s notdi s put e d the f a c t s of th e A p r il 1 9 9 9 c o n v ic tio n s a s r e c ite d b y th e g o v e r n m e n t, a n d th e r e f o r e , th e o n ly rem ai n i n g i ssu e i s th e ex t en tt o w h i ch th o se co n v i ct i o n s are relat ed fo r th e p u rp o se of 21 U . S . C . § 841. 2

“ B e c a us e the que s t i on of w he the rpr i orc onvi c t i ons [ a ] r e r e l a t e d . . . f orthe purpos e s of

[ 21 U . S . C . §] 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) i nvol ve s a f a c tua l i nqui r y , w e r e vi e w the8

di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on f orc l e a re r r or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R i c e , 43 F . 3d 601, 606 (11t h C i r. 19 95 ). T he rul e i n o ur ci rc ui ti s that“ i f the pri or conv i ct i on s r es ul t [] f r o m a c ts f

o r m in g a s in g le c r im in a l e p is o d e , th e n th e y s h o u ld b e tr e a te d a s a s in g le c o n v ic tio n f

o rs e n te n c e e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e rs e c tio n 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) .” I d . a t 6 0 5 . A c t s tha t“ a r e s e pa r a t e i n t i m e a nd l oc a l e a nd [ a r e ] a c t s r e qui r i ng s e pa r a t e pl a nni ng a nd e xe c ut i on” w i l l notc ons t i tut e “ r e l a t e d c onvi c t i ons . ” I d. a t608 ( quot a t i on o m itte d ) . I n R i c e , the di s tr i c tc our tha d e nha nc e d the de f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on thr e e pr i orc onvi c t i ons f ordrug- r e l a t e d c onduc tf r om the f a l l of 1978. I d. a t603- 04. O n a ppe a l , the de f

e nda nta r gue d, i nt e ra l i a , tha thi s c onvi c t i ons s houl d ha ve be e n c ount e d a s a s i ngl e c onvi c t i on be c a us e , a l though he ha d be e n c onvi c t e d a nd s e nt e nc e d by thr e e s e pa r a t e c our t s f ors e pa r a t e i nc i de nt s tha ti nvol ve d di f f e r e nt cond uctand o cc urre d o n d i ff er entdays i n d i ff

er entst at es , “ he [had] re ce i ved c o n c u r r e n t s e n te n c e s w h ic h h e s e r v e d in a s in g le s ta te in s titu tio n .” I d . a t 6 0 6 . W e r e j e c t e d thi s a r gum e nt , r e a s oni ng tha t“ [ t ] o hol d othe r w i s e w oul d be ove rbr oa d a nd fa i l t o p rom ot e the ac tual pu rpose of s ent ence enhancem entun der s e c t i on 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) –t o puni s h r e c i di vi s m . ” I d. N e ve r the l e s s , drug di s tr i but i on offe nses do no tconst i tut e a com m on sc hem e or pl an si m pl y bec ause they w er e par t o f a s in g le c o n s p ir a c y o rth e f o c u s o f a s in g le in v e s tig a tio n . S e e id . a t 6 0 7 - 0 8 .Our interpretation of § 841(b) (1)(A) c omports with those of our sister circuits. See, e.g ., 3 United States v. Ba

rr, 130 F .3d 711, 712 (5th Cir. 1997) (involvingdrugsales on conse cutive da y s to thesamebuye r) ; Unit e d St ate s v . Gra y , 1 52 F .3 d 8 16 , 8 21 (8 th C ir . 1 99 8) (s ame ). Th is judicial construction of § 841 g ains furthe r “prece dential forc e” f rom the fa ct that it has long be e n p ub lis he d a

nd un if or mly a c c epte d thro ugho ut t

hec ountr y wi tho ut a

ny atte mpt by Con gre ss to alter it. See Watson v. United States, __ U.S. __, __, 128 S. Ct . 579, 585 (2007). 9 “ B e c a us e the be s tm a r ke rof r e c i di vi s m i s r e pe t i t i on ove rt i m e , . . . c onvi c t i ons w hi c h oc c uron di f

f e r e ntoc c a s i ons ora r e othe r w i s e di s t i nc ti n t i m e m a y be co n si d ered sep arat e o ffen ses u n d er sect i o n 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A ). ” Id . at6 0 8 ; see al so U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r i f

f i n, 109 F . 3d 706, 708 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( hol di ng tha ta s e nt e nc e w a s pr ope r l y e nha nc e d unde r§ 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) w he r e the tw o pr i or f e l ony c onvi c t i ons r e l i e d upon by the di s tr i c tc our toc c ur r e d s i x da y s a pa r ta nd w er e c on sol i dat ed for s ent enci ng ). 3 H e r e , the tw o of

f e ns e s a ti s s ue w e r e s e pa r a t e i n t i m e , e ve n though onl y by j us tunde rni ne ty m i nut e s . F ur the r , a f t e rR i c ha r ds on a nd the buy e rc om pl e t e d the fi rs ttra nsac t i on – o nce c ocai ne and m on ey had b ot h exchang ed hand s – the bu ye r c om pl e t e l y l e f

tthe pr e m i s e s . F orthe s e c ond tr a ns a c t i on, a f t e ra n houra nd f our t e e n m i nut e s ha d pa s s e d, the buy e rr e turne d a nd a w hol e ne w tr a ns a c t i on t ook p l ace. T h i s tran sact i o n i n v o l v ed th e ex ch an g e o f fu rth er d ru g s an d fu rth er m o n ey, w hi ch w ou l d h ave r equi re d “ se para t e pl anni ng and execut i on ” f rom the fi rs t . S ee R i ce , 43 F . 3d at60 8. T hu s, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rri n con cl ud i ng thatOur c onclusion in this case is further supported by

our ca selaw reg ardingsentenc ing 4 under 18 U .S.C. § 924(e). Unlike 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)( 1)(A) , § 924(e) , which also provide s e nh anc e d s e ntenc e s f

or de fend ants wi th p ri or

of fens e s, sp e c if

ie s th at th os eprior

of fens e s mu st havebe e n “ c omm itt e d o n o c c a sio ns dif ferent f ro m on eano ther. ”Ev e n und e r t hat e xplic it lim itatio n, wehavefo un d o ff e ns e s ta kin gplac eon

thesameda

y no t to bepa

rt of a sin g le c ri min a l epis od efo r t

hepurp os eof

se ntenc ingun de r § 92 4( e ). Se e , e .g ., Un ite d St ate s v . Sp e ars , 443 F.3d 1358, 1360 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (def

endant previously

convicted of

having first robbed two pe ople in a par king lot and then, on the way to his car, only

two minutes later, havingrobbed a

third, was credited with two unre lated prior robbery offenses for thepurposes of § 924(e) ); see also United States v. Pope, 132 F.3d 684, 691 (11th Cir. 1998) ( observingthat §924(e) does not require that pre dicate of fense s be sepa

rate d “by some substantial amount of time”). 10 the tw o p urchas es gave ri se t o t w o d i st i nctoffe nses for the pu rposes of § 84 1(b)(1)(A ). 4 I I I . CONCL US I ON R ic h a r d s o n c h a lle n g e s th e m a n d a to r y lif e s e n te n c e im p o s e d u p o n h im pu rs uantt o § 84 1(b)(1)(A ). B ec ause the tw o p ri or drug conv i ct i on s thatse rved as the basi s f

or the enhancem entw er e di sc re t e c ri m i nal ac t s, w e AF F I RM the ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.