Opinion ID: 32146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Career-Offender Enhancement

Text: 9 Hayes argues that his prior convictions did not render him a career offender under § 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Because Hayes failed to object to the enhancement, his claim is subject to plain error review. To demonstrate plain error, Hayes must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was clear and obvious, and (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). 10 Section 4B1.1 provides that [a] defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. Hayes argues that his two prior felony convictions are related and should not be counted separately for career offender purposes. Specifically, Hayes argues that his prior felony convictions were related because: (1) they were not separated by an intervening arrest, and (2) a de facto consolidation may have occurred. If [Hayes'] prior convictions constitute `related cases' within the meaning of [] § 4A1.2(a)(2), they will not be treated separately for career offender purposes. United States v. Kates, 174 F.3d 580, 584 (5th Cir.1999). The guideline commentary observes that: 11 Prior sentences are not considered related if they were for offenses that were separated by an intervening arrest (i.e., the defendant is arrested for the first offense prior to committing the second offense). Otherwise, prior sentences are considered related if they resulted from offenses that (1) occurred on the same occasion, (2) were part of a single common scheme or plan, or (3) were consolidated for trial or sentencing. 12 U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment (n. 3). 13 After reviewing the Sentencing Guidelines and the caselaw interpreting them, we reject Hayes' arguments that his prior convictions are related. The fact that his prior convictions were not separated by an intervening arrest does not make them related within the meaning of § 4A1.2(a)(2). Hayes points to the above-referenced commentary which states that [p]rior sentences are not considered related if they were for offenses that were separated by an intervening arrest. Hayes argues that the opposite must be true, i.e. that prior convictions are related if they were not separated by an intervening arrest. Although this Court has yet to address this issue, the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Goudy rejected the same argument: 14 Besides being illogical, [the defendant's] argument [that prior offenses are related if they are not separated by an intervening arrest] ignores the rest of the appropriate Guideline, specifically the text of § 4A1.2(a)(2), which provides that prior sentences imposed in unrelated cases are to be counted separately, as well as the balance of Application Note 3 which requires offenses be considered related only if they (1) occurred on the same occasion, (2) were part of a single common plan or scheme, or (3) were consolidated for trial or sentencing. USSG § 4A1.2, comment. 15 78 F.3d 309, 315 (7th Cir.1996). We fully adopt the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in rejecting Hayes' claim that his two separate prior convictions were related simply because they were not separated by an intervening arrest. 16 Hayes further argues that his prior convictions were related because a de facto consolidation may have occurred. See United States v. Huskey, 137 F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir.1998) (holding that a de facto consolidation occurred by virtue of the fact that the charges appeared in the same criminal information under the same docket number). Hayes highlights the fact that his sentences were consolidated for sentencing purposes and were ordered to be served concurrently. Hayes asks this Court to remand his case to permit supplementation of the record on this issue. We deny Hayes' request. In United States v. Metcalf, this Court rejected a defendant's contention that his two prior cases were consolidated for sentencing because they were disposed of on the same day, the sentences were for the same duration, and they were ordered to run concurrently. 898 F.2d 43, 46 (5th Cir.1990). The Court in Metcalf noted the following: 17 [I]n United States v. Flores, [875 F.2d 1110 (5th Cir.1989)] we rejected an assertion that cases are consolidated for sentencing under the Guidelines simply because two convictions have concurrent sentences. Moreover, we do not believe that sentencing on two distinct cases on the same day necessitates a finding that they are consolidated. Here, the [two] offenses proceeded to sentencing under separate docket numbers and there was no order of consolidation. The two cases were also not factually tied in any way. 18 Id. 19 This case is very similar to Metcalf. Hayes' prior felony offenses were under separate docket numbers and there is no factual relationship between the offenses — one is for cocaine distribution and the others are for armed robbery and being an accessory after the fact to purse snatching. Moreover, Hayes received concurrent but different sentences from a single judge. See Kates, 174 F.3d at 584 (noting that this Court has rejected the proposition that cases must be considered consolidated simply because the convictions have concurrent sentences.). Thus, Hayes' prior felony convictions were clearly not related, rather they were consolidated for sentencing purposes only. The district court did not plainly err in finding Hayes to be a career offender under § 4B1.1.