Court Opinion

ID: 2964371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:41.471808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:54.208498
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1380

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   ROBERT M. BARRY,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Robert M. Barry on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Donald  K.   Stern,  United   States  Attorney,   and  Robert   E.
            __________________                                     ___________
        Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        __________

                                 ____________________

                                   OCTOBER 16, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Robert M. Barry  appeals his sentence
                      __________

            for  bank robbery  in violation of  18 U.S.C.    2113(a).  He

            claims that  the district  court erred  by considering  him a

            career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G.   4B1.1.  We disagree.1
                                                                       1

                      Under   4B1.1, a career offender is one who "has at

            least  two prior  felony  convictions of  either  a crime  of

            violence or a controlled substance offense."  These two prior

            convictions  must be unrelated.   U.S.S.G.    4B1.2(3).   The

            commentary to  the guidelines provides, in  part, that crimes

            are  "related" if they are part of a "single common scheme or

            plan."   Id.   4A1.2, comment. (n.3).  Appellant alleges that
                     ___

            his two prior convictions  are part of a common  plan because

            they were motivated by the  same goal -- the need  for arrest

            and punishment.

                      Both of these prior  offenses occurred in 1983, but

            the  similarity between the crimes  ends there.  In September

            1984, appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery;

            appellant committed both robberies  in Florida in March 1983.

            In  January  1984,  appellant   pleaded  guilty  to   charges

            including assault and battery, assault with intent to murder,

                                
            ____________________

               1Because  appellant  obviously  loses on  the  merits,  we
               1
            decline  to  address,   and  therefore  express   no  opinion
            concerning, his  arguments (1) that the  district court erred
            by  not ruling  on his  motion objecting  to career  offender
            status and (2) that  the rule requiring the  sentencing court
            to  treat   as  unrelated   two  offenses  separated   by  an
            intervening  arrest is  inconsistent  with the  guideline for
            computing a defendant's criminal history score. 

                                         -2-

            armed  robbery,  and  rape.    These  crimes  took  place  in

            Massachusetts in  June  1983.   Ordinarily, crimes  involving

            separate victims and occurring  at different places and times

            are not related  under U.S.S.G.    4A1.2, even where,  unlike

            here, they  are the same type of crime.  See United States v.
                                                     ___ _____________

            Yeo,  936 F.2d  628,  629 (1st  Cir.  1991)(thefts of  rented
            ___

            machinery which took  place during a six-week time period are

            not related,  when they involved different  victims, and took

            place on different dates and in different places).

                      Nor does the allegation of a common goal, or motive

            make the  two  prior felony  convictions  part of  a  "single

            common scheme  or plan."   As the  Court of  Appeals for  the

            Fourth  Circuit has  recognized, "[s]hared  motivation cannot

            transform two crimes committed three months apart, prosecuted

            in different jurisdictions,  and involving different victims,

            into  one illicit act."   United States v.  Sanders, 954 F.2d
                                      _____________     _______

            227, 232  (4th Cir. 1992)(a robbery of a bank and a murder in

            the  course of  a  different robbery  are  not "related"  for

            purposes of determining  defendant's career offender  status,

            even though  both crimes allegedly were  committed to sustain

            defendant's  heroin addiction).   See  also United  States v.
                                              _________ ______________

            Gelzer,  50 F.3d  1133, 1143 (2d  Cir. 1995)  (the allegation
            ______

            that a crime spree originated with the hostile environment in

            which  defendant was raised is insufficient  to show that the

            offenses committed during  that spree -- thefts of jewelry --

                                         -3-

            were  related; the  Commission did  not intend  that criminal

            acts  "prompted by the same root causes of criminal deviance"

            constitute a common plan).

                      For  the  foregoing reasons,  the  judgment of  the

            district court is affirmed.
                              ________

                                         -4-