United States v. McDaniel

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-10379
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AARON LYNN McDANIEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
(4:95-CR-12-Y-1)
_________________________________________________________________
(September 28, 1995)
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
On appeal, Lynn McDaniel argues that his two prior convictions
should have been treated as related cases and treated as one
sentence under U.S.S.G § 4A1.2(a)(2). According to the presentence
investigation report, the cases were not consolidated, occurred on
different dates, and involved separate offense conduct. The
concurrent sentences, however, were handed down on the same day.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
In United States v. Garcia, 962 F.2d 479 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 113 S. Ct. 293 (1992), the court observed that cases need
not be considered consolidated because two convictions have
concurrent sentences. See also United States v. Ford, 996 F.2d 83,
85-86 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding sentences for four methamphetamine
deliveries in six-day period not related under § 4A1.2(a)(2)),
cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 704 (1994). McDaniel's claim that his
cases were related because he was given concurrent sentences must
fail. He has not shown under this court's precedent that the
district court erred by treating each conviction as a separate case
for purposes of calculating criminal history points.
The judgment of the district court is
A F F I R M E D.
-2-