Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Dylan KAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-15
Citations: 95 F. App'x 871
Docket Number: No. 03-10385; D.C. No. CR-03-00074-PMP/RJJ
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles Dylan KAY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 871–872

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles Dylan KAY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-10385.
D.C. No. CR-03-00074-PMP/RJJ.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 2004.
Decided April 15, 2004.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding.
Andrew Duncan, USLV — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John C. Lambrose, Anne R. Traum, FPDNV — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Charles Dylan Kay appeals from the district court's judgment sentencing him, pursuant to his guilty plea, to a prison term of 188 months for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Kay contends that the district court erred by treating his prior felony convic tions as unrelated for purposes of sentencing him as a career offender. We apply deferential review to the district court's determination that the prior convictions were not related. See Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 64-66, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001). Kay argues that the convictions were functionally consolidated for sentencing. We disagree. The sentences were imposed nine months apart by different sovereigns in different proceedings. The district court properly sentenced Kay as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. See Buford, 532 U.S. at 61-62; see also United States v. Davis, 922 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir.1991).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.