Haworth

MEMORANDUM **

Victor Allen Haworth appeals the 151-month sentence imposed following his *255 guilty-plea conviction of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). He argues that the district court erroneously sentenced him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1. We have jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and apply deferential review to the district court’s career offender classification. See Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 64-66 , 121 S.Ct. 1276 , 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001).

Haworth argues that the two prior felony convictions underlying the district court’s career offender classification are related and must be counted as one. According to Haworth, the convictions are related because they were part of a single common scheme and were effectively consolidated for sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) & app. note 3. We disagree.

Contrary to Haworth’s argument, “a common modus operandi is not enough to demonstrate a single common scheme or plan.” United States v. Davis, 922 F.2d 1385, 1389 (9th Cir.1991), abrogated on other grounds by Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 , 121 S.Ct. 1276 , 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001). Two offenses are not part of a…