United States of America v. Thomas Jackson Rogers

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EF/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS JACKSON ROGERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-50504
D.C. No. 3:06-cr-01239-MLH
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Jackson Rogers appeals from the two concurrent 188-month
sentences imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for armed bank robbery, in
FILED
JAN 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EF/Research 08-50504 2
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and being a felon in possession of a firearm,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rogers contends that the district court erred by determining that he was a
career offender because his two prior felony convictions were related under
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) (2005), and therefore should have been counted as a single
predicate offense. Even assuming that the “clear and convincing” evidence
standard applied, see United States v. Jordan, 256 F.3d 922, 927-28 (9th Cir.
2001), the record contained sufficient evidence that the offenses were unrelated
because they were committed on different dates, involved different victims, and
were prosecuted by different sovereigns in different proceedings. See
§ 4A1.2(a)(2) & cmt. n.3 (2005); see also United States v. Asberry, 394 F.3d 712,
719-20 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Chapnick, 963 F.2d 224, 226-29 (9th Cir.
1992), superseded on other grounds as stated in United States v. Gallegos-
Gonzalez, 3 F.3d 325, 327-28 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --