Opinion ID: 175425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consecutive Nature of Albritton's Sentences

Text: Albritton argues the district court erred in requiring that his sentence run consecutive to any other undischarged term of imprisonment. In particular, Albritton argues that two of his convictions the Montana crime at issue here and an armed bank robbery in Florida, for which he was serving 51 months at the time of sentencing in this casewere essentially one course of conduct, because they involved very similar modi operandi and occurred close in time (less than 6 months apart). Albritton does not show the district court clearly erred in rejecting his one course of conduct argument. The crimes involved different victims, are clearly distinct in time and place, and were not shown to have occurred with regularity. See United States v. Hahn, 960 F.2d 903, 907, 910 (9th Cir.1992) (reviewing for clear error and stating, the essential components of the section 1B1.3(a)(2) analysis are similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity). [5] AFFIRMED.