United States v. Mollo ( 1997 )

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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-