Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shaun Wesley SKINNER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-25
Citations: 687 F. App'x 391
Docket Number: No. 16-10231 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shaun Wesley SKINNER, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 687
Pages: 391–392

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shaun Wesley SKINNER, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-10231 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed April 25, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Emily Baker Falconer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Shaun Wesley Skinner, Pro Se
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Shaun Wesley Skinner appeals the 151-month, within-guidelines prison sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery and attempted bank robbery. He contends that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender, maintaining that his two prior robbery convictions were related and thus should not have counted separately for purposes of the career offender Guideline. However, Skinner committed the second robbery after he was arrested for the first. Thus, he had two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence whose sentences were counted separately under U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(a), (b), or (c). See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2), (k), 4Bl.l(a), 4B1.2(c). That he was sentenced for both robberies on the same day is irrelevant, See United States v. Akins, 746 F.3d 590, 611 (5th Cir. 2014). Moreover, contrary to Skinner's assertion, § 4Al.l(e) has no bearing on the analysis because his robbery sentences were not treated as a single sentence.
The district court did not err in sentencing Skinner as a career offender. The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.