Opinion ID: 2981027
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Armed Career Criminal Sentencing Enhancement

Text: Perez challenges the applicability of the statutory armed career criminal enhancement to his sentence. Although he admits to having three prior convictions for aggravated robbery, he contends that two of those convictions should be counted as one predicate offense because they were committed on the same day. We review de novo the district court’s ruling that Perez’s offenses were committed on different occasions. United States v. Hill, 440 F.3d 292, 295 (6th Cir. 2006). 2 Asking about “anything illegal” in addition to weapons did not “measurably extend” the duration of the stop. See Everett, 601 F.3d at 495–96. 8 No. 11-5999 United States v. Perez The Armed Career Criminal Act provides that “a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another” shall face a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Two offenses are “committed on occasions different from one another,” id., if “(1) ‘it is possible to discern the point at which the first offense is completed, and the subsequent point at which the second offense begins’; (2) ‘it would have been possible for the offender to cease his criminal conduct after the first offense, and withdraw without committing the second offense’; or (3) ‘the offenses are committed in different residences or business locations.’” United States v. Paige, 634 F.3d 871, 873 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hill, 440 F.3d at 297–98). Two offenses are counted separately if any of these tests are met. United States v. Jones, —F.3d—, No. 09-6549, 2012 WL 716450, at  (6th Cir. Mar. 7, 2012). The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) describes Perez’s three aggravated robberies as occurring on January 13, 2003; January 15, 2003 at 2:40 p.m.; and January 15, 2003 at 6:40 p.m. The two January 15 robberies involved different victims and occurred at different locations. At the sentencing hearing, the government presented court documents from each of the convictions and a map showing that the locations of the two January 15 robberies were one-and-a-half miles apart. 9 No. 11-5999 United States v. Perez Although Perez objected to the application of the sentencing enhancement, he did not object to the underlying facts regarding the convictions that were presented in the PSR. Nor does he contest these facts on appeal.3 The two January 15 robberies were “committed on occasions different from one another” because they occurred at different locations. Moreover, the first robbery was completed well before the second robbery commenced four hours later. Cf. United States v. Brady, 988 F.2d 664, 665 (6th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (holding that two robberies committed thirty minutes apart were committed on different occasions for § 924(e)(1) purposes). For the same reason, Perez could have decided to end the day’s criminal activity after the first robbery; he does not argue that doing so would not have been possible. Accordingly, the district court properly applied the armed career criminal sentencing enhancement based on Perez’s three aggravated-robbery convictions.