Opinion ID: 722247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 13 Appellant and the Government agree that the district court erred in failing to craft a combined sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2. We agree. 14 Section 5G1.2 specifies the procedure for determining the specific sentence to be formally imposed on each count in a multiple-count case. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2, comment. (backg'd.). Importantly, the Commentary goes on to provide that § 5G1.2 applies not only to multiple counts of conviction in the same indictment, but also to multiple counts of conviction contained in different indictments for which sentences are to be imposed at the same time or in a consolidated proceeding. Id. Accordingly, because the sentences in CR 93-797 and CR 93-929 were imposed in a consolidated proceeding, the district court should have applied a different methodology than the one it used. Instead of treating each offense individually, the district court should have applied the grouping rules embodied in §§ 3D1.1-3D1.5 in calculating a combined offense level. See generally § 3D1.5 (Illustration 1). 15 On remand, the district court should calculate Appellant's sentences by applying the appropriate multiple-convictions methodology. 5