Opinion ID: 722247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consolidated Sentencing

Text: 5 Although the district court consolidated the cases for sentencing, it did not apply the rules for multiple counts or convictions pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2. Instead, the district court calculated the sentences separately, and invoked its discretion in deciding to run a portion of the unarmed bank robbery sentence consecutive to the armed bank robbery sentence. In CR 93-797 (unarmed bank robbery), the district court determined the offense level to be 19 (base offense level of 20, increased by two for financial institution, decreased by three for acceptance of responsibility). Indexing the adjusted offense level of 19 with Appellant's criminal history category of VI, the district court determined the appropriate sentencing range to be 63-78 months. 6 In CR 93-929 (armed bank robbery), the district court determined the offense level for Count One to be 25 (base offense level of 20, increased by two for financial institution, increased by one for amount of money taken, and increased by two for reckless endangerment in fleeing from the authorities). Indexing the adjusted offense level of 25 with Appellant's criminal history category of VI, the district court determined the appropriate sentencing range to be 110-137 months. The district court then added the mandatory 60 months for Count Two (the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) violation) to arrive at a sentencing range of 170-197 months. 7 After making these calculations, the district court then pronounced the sentences. For CR 93-797, the district court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for a term of 72 months. 3 For CR 93-929, the district court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for the full 197 months. 4 The district court then ordered that 48 months of the sentence for CR 93-797 would run concurrently with the sentence for CR 93-929, but that the remaining 24 months would run consecutively, for a total sentence of 221 months. The district court explained its rationale: 8 It's the Court's belief that there must be a recognition of the prior unarmed robbery, here; not only by the public, but certainly by the defendant and by all. I believe that the armed robbery, because of the nature of it--incredibly wild and wreckless [sic], and uncaring about the lives of anyone, except themselves--that that particular offense just--and particularly with the prior history, here, it just calls for the high end of the Guideline. And that is why the Court is running--is putting it at the high end as far as [CR 93-929] is concerned and is running the 24 months of the [CR 93-797 sentence] consecutively. 9 Appellant's ER 173-74. 10 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For the following reasons, we vacate the sentence imposed and remand to the district court for resentencing.