Opinion ID: 197719
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Error in Applying U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(d)

Text: Senior contends, in his pro se supplemental brief, that the district court should not have increased his criminal history category by two points under U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(d) because he was not under a criminal justice sentence 3. Indeed, Senior recognized in his brief: Although there is some indication in the record that the Bureau of Prisons would deal with the matter of the credit to be awarded to defendant, the defendant was entitled by the clear mandate of the guideline and commentary to the reduction of his sentence. Id. -6- 6 at the time of the instant offense. Questions such as this, which involve the applicability of a sentencing guideline, are reviewed by this court de novo. See United States v. Ruiz, 105 F.3d 1492, 1504 (1st Cir. 1997). Senior correctly states that U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(d) applies only if the instant offense occurred while he was under a criminal justice sentence. He then argues that this guideline does not apply because the execution of his arrest warrant in 1995 occurred after the scheduled discharge date of his parole. Therefore, in his view, two points should not have been added to his criminal history category. Senior mistakenly perceives his arrest on the Massachusetts warrant as the relevant offense. The relevant offense, i.e., the one for which he was sentenced, is being illegally in this country without the consent of the Attorney General, 8 U.S.C. 1326. Senior's argument thus rests on a faulty premise. At any rate, whether we look to the date of his unlawful reentry (in April 1992) or of his apprehension (on March 15, 1996), Senior was under a criminal justice sentence at either time. It seems obvious that, in April 1992, Senior was still on parole for his 1989 possession offense, and that, on March 15, 1996, Senior was still imprisoned for that -7- 7 parole violation.4 Accordingly, we find no error in the district court's application of U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(d).