Opinion ID: 719442
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Calculation of Luna's Criminal History Score

Text: 17 We review de novo the district court's interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Basinger, 60 F.3d 1400, 1409 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Oliver, 60 F.3d 547 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. France, 57 F.3d 865, 866 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Buenrostro-Torres, 24 F.3d 1173, 1174 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Demers, 13 F.3d 1381, 1382 (9th Cir.1994). We also review de novo a district court's determination that a prior sentence falls within the scope of the guidelines. United States v. Carson, 988 F.2d 80, 81 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 142 (1993) (citing United States v. Hoy, 932 F.2d 1343, 1344 (9th Cir.1991)). 18 Luna argues that it was error to include an Oregon conviction in the calculation of his criminal history score because the original sentence imposed for the California bank robbery had been used to enhance the sentence imposed by the District of Oregon. We find that the district court did not err in using the Oregon conviction to enhance Luna's sentence because the conduct that gave rise to the Oregon conviction occurred before the sentencing in this case. See United States v. Klump, 57 F.3d 801, 803 (9th Cir.1995) (although a resentencing court may not consider post-sentencing conduct, there is no prohibition against considering a post-sentencing sentence for purposes of calculating the length of the sentence). Luna has not shown that his sentence now under review was made longer by the fact that the Oregon sentence was enhanced by his reversed conviction. 2 Accordingly, we affirm the district court's calculation of Luna's criminal history score. 19