UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4607
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARL TERRELL JUDGE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-02-188)
Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: March 30, 2004
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hervery B. O. Young, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Miller W. Shealy, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carl Judge pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and fifty or
more grams of cocaine base (crack), 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and was
sentenced as a career offender to a term of 262 months
imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2002).
Judge contends on appeal that the district court plainly erred in
sentencing him as a career offender. We affirm.
Judge maintains that his three prior felony drug
convictions were related cases because they were part of a single
common scheme or plan, see USSG § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3), and should
have been counted as one prior conviction. Thus, in his view, he
lacked the two predicate convictions necessary to qualify him for
a career offender sentence. Judge overlooks the fact that his
prior offenses were separated by intervening arrests. Id.
Consequently, the district court did not plainly err in counting
each offense separately in Judge’s criminal history or in
sentencing him as a career offender.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -