Court Opinion

ID: 2963660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:38.026891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:44.441423
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        September 18, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 93-1698

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                GERALD HOYT HUMPHREY,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Tina Schneider on brief for appellant.
            ______________
            Jay P.  McCloskey, United States  Attorney, and  F. Mark  Terison,
            _________________                                ________________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    Gerald  Hoyt Humphrey  appeals  his
                      ___________

            sentencing  as an  armed career  criminal  under 18  U.S.C.  

            924(e), claiming  that he  did not  have the  requisite three

            convictions for crimes committed on "occasions different from

            one  another."   The  district  court  found that  Humphrey's

            crimes  of armed  robbery,  on the  one  hand, and  attempted

            murder and kidnapping,  on the other,  had been committed  on

            different occasions, so that his convictions for those crimes

            qualified   as  two  of   the  required   three  convictions.

            (Humphrey also  had a previous  conviction for manslaughter.)

            As  the district court  found, those crimes  are different in

            nature and were committed on  different days and at different

            locations.  We add  as well that they were  committed against

            different victims.  Under the circumstances, it is clear that

            the district court did  not err in sentencing Humphrey  as an

            armed  career  criminal.   Compare,  e.g.,  United States  v.
                                       ______________   _____________

            Ressler, 54 F.3d 257, 259-60  (5th Cir. 1995); United  States
            _______                                        ______________

            v. Hudspeth, 42 F.3d 1015, 1020-22 (7th Cir. 1994) (en banc),
               ________

            cert.  denied,  115  S. Ct.  2252  (1995);  United States  v.
            _____________                               _____________

            Rideout,  3 F.3d 32,  34 (2d Cir.), cert.  denied, 114 S. Ct.
            _______                             _____________

            569 (1993)  (all determining  that crimes committed  the same

            night were committed on different occasions because they were

            committed  at different times,  against different victims, at

            different locations); cf. United  States v. Gillies, 851 F.2d
                                  ___ ______________    _______

            492,  497  (1st  Cir.)  (convictions  for  robberies  of  two

            different stores on consecutive days qualified  as two of the

            three requisite  convictions under  an earlier version  of 18

            U.S.C.   924(e)), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 857 (1988). 
                              ____________

                      Affirmed.
                      _________

                                         -3-