United States v. Anthony Scott Drake

Good Law
49 F.3d 1438·95 Daily Journal DAR 3419·1995 WL 111945·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 5302·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1984
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 17, 199594-30209California1,382 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Scannlain, J.

We must reconcile an apparent conflict between a mandatory minimum sentence statute and the United States Sentencing Guidelines provisions for concurrent sentencing.

I

In a state proceeding, Anthony Drake was sentenced to sixty-six months in an Oregon prison for his participation in an armed robbery in which a .380 SPP semi-automatic handgun was used.

Shortly after Drake began serving his state sentence, a federal grand jury indicted him on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Drake ultimately pled guilty to possession' of the handgun used in the Oregon robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g). Because Drake had previously been convicted of three violent felonies, his plea of guilty to the section 922(g) offense rendered him subject to a mandatory minimum 180-month sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(1). With this in mind, Drake and the government agreed that a sentence of 188 months would be appropriate.

At sentencing, Drake argued that, in light of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b), the federal sentence should be imposed to run concurrently to his state sentence. In relevant, part, section 5G1.3(b) provides that where a federal sentence is imposed on a defendant who…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.