Court Opinion

ID: 2965010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:08.915601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:18.516304
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1922

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                ARTHUR J. MOLLO, III,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Richard R. Beauchesne and  Peters & Associates, P.A. on brief  for
            _____________________      _________________________
        appellant.
            Jay P. McCloskey, United  States Attorney, George  T. Dilworth and
            ________________                           ___________________
        Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for
        _____________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  December 17, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Upon careful review, we conclude  that the
                 __________

            district court did not err  in sentencing appellant under the

            Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C.   924(e)(1). 

                 Appellant  contends that he  did not have  the requisite

            three  convictions  for  offenses  committed  on   "occasions

            different  from  one  another,"  because  two  of  his  three

            predicate  offenses  were  committed  on the  same  day:   on

            February 25,  1987, at 8:40 p.m., appellant and an accomplice

            attempted  to rob a  liquor store in  Greenwich, Connecticut;

            and 30 minutes later on the same date, appellant and the same

            accomplice robbed a variety store in Stamford, Connecticut.  

                 We  reject that contention.  Those two crimes, committed

            at  different times  against different  victims  in different

            locations,  both qualified  as  predicate  offenses for  ACCA

            purposes.  See United States v. Hudspeth, 42 F.3d 1015, 1020-
                       ___ _____________    ________

            22 (7th Cir. 1994).

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -2-