The parties agree that no intervening arrest separated the offenses. The state court did not enter an order consolidating Allen's charges for trial or sentencing and the charges proceeded to sentencing under 2 separate docket numbers. The state judge proceeded to sentence the Septem- ber and January offenses separately, at the same hearing, according to the plea agreement. On this set of facts and in the absence of a formal order of consoli- dation, the Government argues that the offenses are not related within the meaning of the Sentencing Guidelines. Prior sen- tences imposed in unrelated cases are to be counted separately.
Prior sentences imposed in related cases are to be treated as one sentence . . . .
Such an approach, the Government argues, will foster the goals of the Sentencing Guidelines to provide uniformity and predict- ability in sentencing, see U.S.S.G. Ch. 1, Pt. Gross held that single sentencing proceed- ings where concurrent sentences are imposed, without more, do not render cases related under the Sentencing Guidelines. A defendant convicted of multiple unrelated offenses who fortuitously is sentenced for all offenses by one judge at one time would subsequently face less punishment when his points are totaled than another defendant who committed the same crimes but was sepa- rately sentenced on successive days or on the same day by different judges. The two burglaries had occurred approximately two weeks apart. The court held that Appli- cation Note 3 prevented the district court from counting the offenses as separate in determining the defendant's career offender status.