Opinion ID: 2658283
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gage’s Career Offender Enhancement

Text: We review a district court’s determination that a defendant is a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 de novo.51 Gage contends that the district court erred in applying a career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) because he argues that his two prior felony convictions were related and should have counted as a single prior conviction for sentencing enhancement purposes. A career-offender enhancement applies under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) if, among other things, “the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” The Guidelines instruct that “[p]rior sentences always are counted separately if the sentences were imposed 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).”52 50 U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), application note 11(A). 51 United States v. Brewster, 137 F.3d 853, 858 (5th Cir. 1998). 52 U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). 28 Case: 12-40515 Document: 00512575405 Page: 29 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 No. 12-40515 The district court sentenced Gage as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) based on Gage’s two prior convictions: one, for an arrest on April 27, 2003, for Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver, and two, on May 27, 2003, for Delivery of a Controlled Substance. Gage was sentenced for both these offenses on the same day, November 11, 2003. Although he acknowledges that the offenses were separated by an intervening arrest, Gage argues that the Court nevertheless should treat them as related because they both occurred within a month of each other in the same town and the second offense (delivery) was the completion of the conduct underlying the first offense (possession with intent to deliver). But Gage points to no in-circuit authority that suggests the district court should overlook the clear language of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) on these grounds, and we decline to do so here. Accordingly, we hold that the calculation of Gage’s sentence under § 4B1.1(a) and § 4A1.2(a)(2) was proper.