Baker
United States v. Baker
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
The appeal questions Daniel Wayne Baker’s sentence.
We review the district court’s factual findings in the sentencing context for clear error. United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 , 811 n. 22 (9th Cir.1999). The pivotal question is whether the court properly treated Baker’s state conviction as a prior conviction or whether it should have been considered a “related sentence” since it was committed at the same time and place as the felon-in-possession count.
Baker’s argument is based on an incorrect guideline section. § 4A1.2(a)(2) was not intended to define “prior sentences” for criminal history purposes. United States v. Garcia, 909 F.2d 389, 392 (9th Cir.1990). Rather, the “related cases” provision of § 4A1.2(a)(2) deals with the relationship between multiple prior sentences, not the relationship between prior sentences and a current offense. Id.; United States v. Ticchiarelli, 171 F.3d 24, 34 (1st Cir.1999).
The government addressed the same incorrect guideline section instead of referring to the appropriate one. The relationship between a prior sentence and a current offense is governed by U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(1). United States v. Ladum, 141 F.3d 1328, 1347…