Opinion ID: 752460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Loveless' Criminal History

Text: 37 Loveless argues that the district court improperly enhanced his criminal history by three points for his California state conviction for possession of a controlled substance on May 7, 1993. This conviction, Loveless contends, is part of the instant offense, and as such, it should not be considered in calculating his criminal history. 38 In determining a defendant's criminal history category, the district court should assess three points for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a). Although conduct that is part of the current offense should be counted as relevant conduct rather than as a prior sentence, conduct is not part of the instant offense when it is a 'severable distinct offense.'  United States v. Copeland, 45 F.3d 254, 256 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Blumberg, 961 F.2d 787, 792 (8th Cir.1992)). In making this determination, the district court should consider temporal and geographical proximity, common victims, and a common criminal plan. Id. This Court reviews the sentencing court's determination for clear error. United States v. Strange, 102 F.3d 356, 361 (8th Cir.1996). 39 We find no clear error in the district court's determination that Loveless' California state conviction for possessing methamphetamine and marijuana with the intent to distribute was a prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a). This conviction occurred after Loveless' last contact with Reber, and there is no evidence indicating that Loveless intended to distribute these drugs to Reber or anyone in Nebraska. The government neither offered any evidence related to this conviction to prove the Nebraska conspiracy nor referenced this conviction in its case in chief. Under these circumstances, the district court properly enhanced Loveless' criminal history for his California state conviction. 40 Affirmed.