United States v. Curtis L. Feather

369 F.3d 1035, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11304, 2004 WL 1253178

Opinions

[PUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM..

Curtis L. Feather pled guilty to forcibly opposing, resisting, and impeding a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111; two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3) and 1153; and damaging government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361. The district court¹ sentenced him to 180 months after finding that he was a career offender based on several prior convictions for crimes of violence. See U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a). Feather appeals the district court’s finding that he was a career offender.

Feather had prior convictions for accomplice to burglary of a pawn shop in July 1994 and for burglaries of a Standard station and a senior citizens’ center in August 1995. He claims that these state cases were consolidated for trial and sentencing and should therefore be treated as a single prior conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. n. 3. Since he did not raise this claim in the district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Sun Bear, 307 F.3d 747, 750 (8th Cir.2002).

Several factors support the district court’s finding that Feather’s prior felony convictions were unrelated and should be counted separately.² His crimes took place more than a year apart and involved separate businesses. See United States v. Deroo, 304 F.3d 824, 828 (8th Cir.2002) (burglaries of three buildings with unrelated owners one hour apart were separate crimes of violence). The crimes were charged by separate complaints, proceeded to sentencing under separate docket numbers, and no formal order of consolidation was made. See United States v. Paden, 330 F.3d 1066, 1067 (8th Cir.2003). We see no error in the district court’s finding that Feather was a career offender. Feather’s additional argument that burglary of a commercial building is not a crime of violence is without merit. See United States v. Hutman, 339 F.3d 773, 777 (8th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Footnotes

1

. The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.

2

. Our court generally considers all relevant circumstances in determining whether cases should be treated as related. See, e.g., United States v. Klein, 13 F.3d 1182, 1185 (8th Cir.1994) (prior burglaries unrelated where not consolidated for sentencing and where crimes took place on three different days and on different premises); United States v. McComber, 996 F.2d 946, 947 (8th Cir.1993) (prior crimes unrelated where not consolidated for sentencing and where sentences were for different offenses committed over long period of time). See also United States v. Joseph, 50 F.3d 401, 403-04 (7th Cir.1995) (crimes unrelated where they were committed months apart "making it unlikely that they would be 'consolidated' for sentencing, though there might be a single sentencing hearing for the sake of administrative convenience ...”).