United States v. Turner , 61 F. App'x 521 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 18 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 02-5111
v. D.C. No. 01-CR-118-H
(N.D. Oklahoma)
NATHANIEL TURNER, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, BRISCOE and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Convicted in federal court of being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition, Nathaniel Turner, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed by the district
court. Specifically, Turner appeals the district court’s decision to impose only
part of the sentence concurrently with Turner’s undischarged state sentences. We
have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument
pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and
judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of
orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the
terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
I
On February 7, 2001, Turner was indicted in state court in Tulsa County,
Oklahoma on seven counts, including: (1) possession of a controlled drug with
intent to distribute within 2,000 feet of a public park; (2) possession of a firearm
while in the commission of a felony; (3) possession of a firearm after former
conviction of a felony; (4) feloniously pointing a weapon; and (5) knowingly
concealing stolen property. Following a plea agreement, the state dismissed all
counts except (1) and (5). Turner was sentenced to five-year prison terms on both
counts, which were imposed concurrently.
Nine months after his state indictment, Turner was indicted in federal court
on one count of possessing two firearms and ammunition after a former felony
conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). One of the two
firearms that served as the basis for the federal charge, a Ruger 9mm pistol, was
the same firearm used as the basis for Count 5 of the state indictment, knowingly
concealing stolen property. On February 8, 2002, Turner pled guilty to the
federal charge and admitted having possessed two firearms following a prior
felony conviction.
Following the guilty plea, a U.S. probation officer prepared a Presentence
Investigation Report (“PSR”). The PSR set the base offense level at twenty,
added two points because the Ruger pistol was stolen, added four more points
-2-
because the firearm was used in connection with another felony offense (the state
drug conviction), and subtracted three points for acceptance of responsibility.
Turner’s total offense level was thus determined to be twenty-three. Based on a
total criminal history category of IV, the PSR arrived at a guideline range of
seventy to eighty-seven months’ imprisonment.
Applying U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c), the PSR recommended that the federal
sentence run partially concurrent with the undischarged state sentences. Turner
filed an objection to the PSR, arguing that § 5G1.3(b) should be applied instead
of § 5G1.3(c) and the entire federal sentence should run concurrently with the
undischarged state sentences for drug possession and concealing stolen property.
Rejecting this argument, the district court held that subsection (b) was not
applicable because the state convictions had not been fully taken into account in
calculating the federal sentence. Applying subsection (c) of the same guideline,
the district court imposed a sentence of eighty-seven months, with forty-one
months of that sentence to run concurrently with the undischarged state sentences
because that portion of the federal sentence arose from the conduct that served as
the basis of his state conviction. The court imposed the remaining 46 months to
run consecutively to the state court case. Turner appeals the district court’s
application of § 5G1.3(c).
-3-
II
We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the
Sentencing Guidelines de novo, and review the court’s factual determinations at
sentencing for clear error. United States v. McCarty, 82 F.3d 943, 950 (10th Cir.
1996). Both parties agree that U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 applies to the instant case; the
question is whether the district court should have applied subsection (b) or
subsection (c). 1 Section 5G1.3 deals with the imposition of a sentence on a
defendant subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment. Under § 5G1.3(b),
where “the undischarged term of imprisonment resulted from offense(s) that have
been fully taken into account in the determination of the offense level for the
instant offense, the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run
concurrently to the undischarged term of imprisonment.” Thus, subsection (b)
applies only when the offense resulting in an undischarged term of imprisonment
was “fully taken into account” in determining the offense level for the federal
sentence.
Ruling that Turner’s state convictions were not fully taken into account in
calculating the federal offense level, and therefore subsection (b) did not apply,
the district court instead imposed a sentence under subsection (c).
Section 5G1.3(c) provides that “[i]n any other case, the sentence for the instant
1
Neither party contends that § 5G1.3(a) applies to the instant case.
-4-
offense may be imposed to run concurrently, partially concurrently, or
consecutively to the prior undischarged term of imprisonment to achieve a
reasonable punishment for the instant offense.” Turner argues that this was error,
and that the district court should have applied subsection (b). In essence, the
parties disagree over whether Turner’s state offenses were fully taken into
account in calculating the offense level for his federal conviction, as this
determines which subsection applies.
We have interpreted subsection (b) to apply only when a defendant’s state
and federal convictions “involved the same course of conduct.” United States v.
Hurlich, 293 F.3d 1223, 1229 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing § 5G1.3 cmt. n.2). When
the federal offense is not based on the same course of conduct as the state
offense, the state offense was not “fully taken into account” in calculating the
federal sentence, and thus subsection (b) does not apply. Id. Moreover, if any
one of multiple offenses is not fully taken into account in the calculation of a
federal sentence, other circuits have held that § 5G1.3(c) may be applied. See,
e.g., United States v. Kimble, 107 F.3d 712, 715 (9th Cir. 1997); see also United
States v. Caraballo, 200 F.3d 20, 28 (1st Cir. 1999) (discussing the rationale for
this interpretation of the Guidelines). We agree with this conclusion.
Turner contends that, as his federal offense level was increased because the
firearm was stolen, his state conviction for knowingly concealing stolen property
-5-
was fully taken into account in calculating his federal offense level here. We
need not decide this issue, however, because Turner also faces an undischarged
state sentence for possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute within
2,000 feet of a public park, which was not fully taken into account in calculating
his federal sentence. While the district court did not specifically rely on this drug
conviction at the sentencing hearing, “[w]e are free to affirm a district court
decision on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit
conclusions of law, even grounds not relied upon by the district court.” United
States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 542 n.6 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted).
A conviction on drug charges does not involve the same course of conduct
as a firearm conviction. We have held that the mere fact that a particular firearm
that served as the basis for a federal charge was also used in the commission of a
state crime does not mean that the two crimes were based on the same course of
conduct. See, e.g., McCarty, 82 F.3d at 951 (“Increasing a defendant’s offense
level by noting that a defendant used a firearm to commit a previous felony does
not take into account the substantive aspects of the underlying felony any more
than noting that the felony occurred in the afternoon, on a sunny day or in an
urban area.”). This is true even where the district court imposed a four-level
departure for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense
(here, the drug charge). See Hurlich, 293 F.3d at 1226. Thus, Turner’s state
-6-
conviction for drug possession near a park was not fully taken into account in the
calculation of his federal offense level, and the district court did not err in
imposing a partially concurrent sentence under § 5G1.3(c).
III
For the foregoing reasons, Turner’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-7-