Court Opinion

ID: 994464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:23:19.802027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:27.150632
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 97-4455

GREGORY DANIELS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-97-52)

Submitted: February 25, 1998

Decided: March 17, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney,
E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Daniels pled guilty to bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 2113(a) (West Supp. 1997), and was sentenced as a career offender
to a term of 96 months imprisonment. He appeals his sentence, con-
tending that the district court erred in finding that two prior bank rob-
bery convictions were not related offenses. See USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2),
comment. (n.3).* We affirm.

In 1991, Daniels was charged in two separate indictments with
committing two bank robberies in the Western District of North Caro-
lina. One robbery occurred on December 6, 1990, in Candler, North
Carolina. The other occurred on November 23, 1990, in Asheville,
North Carolina. Daniels was arrested in Miami, Florida, in January
1991. Both charges were transferred to the Southern District of Flor-
ida pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 20. Daniels entered guilty pleas to
both robberies and was sentenced for both crimes in one hearing.
Daniels was released in November 1996 and committed the instant
offense in January 1997.

The probation officer recommended that Daniels be sentenced as
a career offender. Under USSG § 4B1.1, a defendant is a career
offender if (1) he was at least eighteen years old at the time of the
instant offense, (2) the instant offense is either a crime of violence or
a controlled substance offense, and (3) the defendant has at least two
prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled
substance offense. Daniels did not dispute the first two criteria. How-
ever, he argued at sentencing that his two prior sentences for bank
robbery were imposed in related cases and should be treated as one.
See USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2) (sentences in related cases treated as one
sentence for criminal history purposes).
_________________________________________________________________

*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1995).

                     2
Cases are related if they result from offenses that (1) occurred on
the same occasion, (2) were part of a single common scheme or plan,
or (3) were consolidated for trial or sentencing. Daniels does not con-
tend that the two prior robberies occurred on "the same occasion" or
"were part of a single common scheme or plan." As a result, Daniels'
claim turns on whether his two prior robberies were"consolidated for
trial or sentencing."

We have held that cases are not "consolidated for trial or sentenc-
ing" unless a court has entered a formal order of consolidation. See
United States v. Allen, 50 F.3d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1995). Daniels con-
tended that the two offenses had been consolidated for plea and sen-
tencing by virtue of the Rule 20 transfer. The district court was
unconvinced and sentenced him as a career offender.

On appeal, Daniels argues that the robberies should be treated as
consolidated, despite the lack of a consolidation order, because they
could have been charged in a single indictment and could have been
consolidated for trial or sentencing. The fact remains that the rob-
beries were charged separately and were never formally consolidated.
Under Allen, the district court properly treated them as unrelated
offenses.

We therefore affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

                    3