United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1410

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Matthew Steven Boyd

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

 ____________

 Submitted: January 14, 2020

Filed: April 9, 2020

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before KELLY, BEAM, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Matthew Boyd appeals the district court’s1

 imposition of the career offender

enhancement (United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1), based upon two

prior drug trafficking offenses. Boyd argues the two offenses were really one

continuing offense because (1) the convictions and sentences for the offenses were

handed down on the same date and (2) because he was actually in custody throughout

the relevant time period and the two offenses were therefore not separated by an

intervening arrest. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1, 4B1.2(c) (indicating that prior convictions

are counted separately if the sentences for the two felony convictions are counted

separately, i.e., if the sentences were imposed for offenses separated by an intervening

arrest). Boyd also challenges the reliability of the state court records used to prove

the prior offenses and arrests. With the career offender enhancement, Boyd’s

sentencing range was 188 to 235 months. However, the district court varied

downward to 144 months, believing it to be “the fair and just sentence.” Without the

career offender enhancement, the government contends that Boyd’s Guidelines range

would have been 130 to 162 months. Thus, the government points out that even if

the district court erred in applying the enhancement, Boyd’s sentence would likely

have been the same.

We have reviewed the testimony of the probation officer at sentencing, and the

record of the state court drug offenses at issue and are satisfied that the government

met its burden to establish two separate drug trafficking offenses. The first offense,

possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, occurred on September 4, 2011,

and Boyd was arrested on that date. The second offense, also possession of

methamphetamine with intent to deliver, occurred on November 16, 2011. Because

there was an intervening arrest (September 4, 2011) between the two offenses, there

were indeed two separate offenses, qualifying Boyd for the career offender

enhancement. United States v. Armstrong, 782 F.3d 1028, 1036 (8th Cir. 2015)

1The Honorable D.P. Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

-2-
(noting that prior sentences–and therefore offenses–are counted separately if the

defendant is arrested for the first offense prior to committing the second offense). 

Further, we reject Boyd’s argument that the state court records used to establish the

prior offenses and arrests were not sufficiently reliable, as the district court found

them to be reliable after the probation officer testified. See United States v.

Schlosser, 558 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding that the reliability of state court

records for use at sentencing is within the district court’s discretion and depends upon

the particular facts of each case). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-3-