Opinion ID: 3029279
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Child-Endangerment Conviction

Text: Fuehrer argues that the district court should have considered his childendangerment conviction as part of the relevant conduct for his underlying federal drug charge. Fuehrer asserts that because the child-endangerment conviction occurred between the three federal controlled drug purchases, the district court erred in using it to calculate his criminal history score. If the district court would have adopted Fuehrer's position, his criminal history category would have been reduced from a Category V (92-115 months) to a Category IV (77-96 months). We consider a trial court's conclusions on the question of relevant conduct to be factual in nature and review them only for clear error. United States v. Balano, 8 F.3d 629, 630 (8th Cir. 1993). Under United States Sentencing Guideline § 4A.1.1, criminal history points are assessed for each prior sentence imposed on a defendant. The guidelines interpret prior sentence as any sentence previously imposed . . . for conduct not part of the -3- instant offense. U.S.S.G. § 4A.1.2 (2000). The commentary to the guideline explains: A sentence imposed after the defendant's commencement of the instant offense, but prior to sentencing on the instant offense, is a prior sentence if it was for conduct other than conduct that was part of the instant offense. Conduct that is part of the instant offense means conduct that is relevant conduct to the instant offense under the provisions of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct). U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, cmt. n.1. In determining whether conduct is part of the instant offense, courts consider several factors, including temporal and geographical proximity, common victims, and a common criminal plan or intent. United States v. Blumberg, 961 F.2d 787, 792 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding a 1973 burglary was severable from conspiracy to transport stolen property because the instant charge arose from a 1990 incident and the 1973 burglary targeted a different victim and had different accomplices). Fuehrer maintains that his child-endangerment conviction and federal drug distribution charge have a common scheme or plan and related harms, namely drug activity. Fuehrer also asserts that the child-endangerment conviction and federal drug distribution charge are part of the same course of conduct, because the state child-endangerment incident occurred between the federal controlled drug purchases. The district court concluded that the state and federal offenses targeted different victims, namely, Fuehrer's son and society as a whole. The court also noted that while the state and federal offenses had some common elements, the childendangerment offense was unrelated to the federal drug distribution offense. No clear error exists in this determination. -4- Fuehrer also appeals the district court's refusal to depart downward to credit him for time served on his discharged state child-endangerment conviction. We review a court's decision to deny a departure only if the defendant can show that the court had an unconstitutional motive in denying the request or if the court erroneously believed that it lacked the authority to depart. See United States v. Peterson, 223 F.3d 756, 763 (8th Cir. 2000). Fuehrer has not alleged an unconstitutional motive. Further, the district court recognized its authority to depart downward and concluded Fuehrer's circumstances did not warrant a departure. Thus, we lack the authority to review the district court's refusal to depart.2