United States v. Almanza-Camacho

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 17, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 02-20954
Summary Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARMANDO ALMANZA-CAMACHO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-02-CR-59-ALL)
_________________________________________________________________
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Armando Almanza-Camacho appeals his sentence for illegal
reentry following deportation. Almanza contends that the district
court erred in its application of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) by ruling
that one of Almanza’s three prior drug-trafficking convictions was
not “related” to the other two convictions and, accordingly,
considering it separately in determining Almanza’s criminal history
score.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
A district court’s determination that cases were consolidated
for trial or sentencing is reviewed only for clear error. E.g.,
Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 64-66 (2001). “[A] finding
that prior cases were ‘consolidated’ will require either some
factual connexity between them, or else a finding that the cases
were merged for trial or sentencing”. United States v. Huskey, 137
F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). A formal
consolidation order is not a prerequisite to a “consolidation”
finding. Id. When factually distinct offenses are sentenced “on
the same day and/or in the same proceeding” or result in the
“imposition of identical, concurrent sentences”, they are not
considered related under § 4A1.2. Id.
Along this line, the district court did not clearly err in
finding that one of the three prior offenses was not “related”.
Although Almanza pleaded guilty and the state court imposed
sentence for all of the offenses on the same day, each offense was
prosecuted under a separate cause number and was addressed in a
separate judgment, thus suggesting that they should not be
considered consolidated for federal sentencing purposes. See
Buford, 532 U.S. at 65.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --