Opinion ID: 1234144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intervening Arrest

Text: In response, the government contends that Williams's convictions cannot be related because the offenses were separated by an intervening arrest. Prior sentences are not considered related if they were 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). U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. n. 3. We agree with Williams and conclude that his prior offenses were not separated by an intervening arrest. The government argues, in essence, that Williams's two prior convictions were separated by an intervening arrest because he was arrested for the offenses at different times  he was arrested by the state authorities in July 2002, but was not arrested for his federal offense until October 2002. The government's argument overlooks the fact that the relevant intervening arrest inquiry looks at whether the defendant committed the second offense before he was arrested for the first. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. n. 3. Here, although Williams was not arrested on the federal offense until after he was arrested on the state offense, his commission of the federal offense pre-dated his arrest on the state offense. Williams's illegal actions that led to the federal offense took place in late 2001 and early 2002, and he was not arrested for either the federal or state offense until July 2002. Because Williams committed the federal offense before he was arrested for the state offense, his two prior offenses are not separated by an intervening arrest.