Opinion ID: 169654
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unreasonableness based on Mr. Wilken's criminal history

Text: Mr. Wilken also argues, based more specifically on the facts of his case, that his criminal history does not warrant the sentence enhancement resulting from his being labeled a career offender under § 4B1.1. He notes that he proceeded pro se in pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of possession of marijuana and argues that this prior conviction should therefore not have contributed to his criminal history score. He also contends that, although the PSR listed three felony convictions for drug offenses in his criminal history, two of these convictions occurred in related cases and should therefore be treated as a single sentence; thus, he only had two previous offenses that qualified him for application of § 4B1.1. It is not clear that Mr. Wilken's characterization of his prior convictions as related is accurate, as the record does not demonstrate that any of the prior convictions listed in the PSR occurred on the same occasion, were part of a single common scheme or plan, or were consolidated for trial or sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(c) (defining the two prior felony convictions required for career offender status to require that the convictions be counted separately under § 4A1.1's criminal history provisions); U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, cmt. 3 (defining related cases, which are not counted separately for purposes of criminal history, as those resulting 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). In any case, even if we were to adopt Mr. Wilken's version of his criminal history, the two prior felony convictions for drug offenses that he accepts are still sufficient to support the district court's application of the career offender enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) (requiring a career offender to have, inter alia, at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense). As Mr Wilken concedes that this represents the minimum number of offenses triggering the provision, we fail to see how his characterization of his criminal history in any way indicates that application of § 4B1.1 would be unreasonable. Further undercutting Mr. Wilken's argument is the fact that the district court, at the sentencing hearing, recognize[d] that the [PSR's] criminal history overstates [Mr. Wilken's] criminal history slightly, and therefore granted a downward adjustment from § 4B1.1's provision of criminal history category VI, opting instead to keep Mr. Wilken in category V. Mr. Wilken thus received a sentence that took into account the relative lack of severity of his criminal history. [10] We therefore hold that Mr. Wilken's sentence is not unreasonable based on his criminal history and his qualification as a career offender under § 4B1.1.