F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
December 2, 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 05-1255
JEFFREY THURMOND
HUMPHRIES,
Defendant - Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO *
(D.C. NO. 04-CR-33-RB)
Raymond P. Moore, Federal Public Defender and Janine Yunker, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant - Appellant.
William J. Leone, United States Attorney, Martha A. Paluch, Assistant United
States Attorney, and Philip A. Brimmer, Assistant United States Attorney,
Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff - Appellee.
Before HARTZ, Circuit Judge, BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and
McCONNELL, Circuit Judge.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
Jeffrey Thurmond Humphries pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession
of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The presentence report (PSR)
suggested that Mr. Humphries belonged in criminal history category VI.
Mr. Humphries objected to the PSR’s treatment of four of his juvenile
convictions. He argued that the four convictions had been consolidated for
sentencing and therefore should be considered “related” for purposes of the
Sentencing Guidelines and counted as a single prior conviction. The district court
rejected his argument, and he appealed. We remanded for resentencing in light of
Booker v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The district court again rejected
Mr. Humphries’ arguments, adopted its findings from the prior hearing, and
imposed the same sentence. Applying a deferential standard of review, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
The United States Sentencing Guidelines set forth how to calculate a
defendant’s criminal history. Under the guidelines, prior sentences in “related”
cases are treated collectively as a single sentence. See United States Sentencing
Guidelines (USSG) § 4A1.2(a)(2). When the prior sentences were separated by an
intervening arrest, they are not considered related. Id. cmt. 3. “Otherwise, prior
sentences are considered related if they resulted from offenses that (A) occurred
on the same occasion, (B) were part of a single common scheme or plan, or (C)
-2-
were consolidated for trial or sentencing.” Id. In this case the district court did
not find that Mr. Humphries’ four juvenile convictions were separated by
intervening arrests, and on appeal the government does not argue that they were.
In turn, Mr. Humphries concedes that the offenses did not occur on the same
occasion and were not part of a single common scheme or plan. The sole question
presented, then, is whether the convictions were consolidated for sentencing.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
There is some question about the standard of review that we should apply.
We have held that “[t]he meaning of the word ‘related’ is a legal issue that we
review de novo, . . . [w]hile the district court’s determination of whether various
offenses were ‘related’ is a factual determination reviewed only for clear error.”
United States v. Alberty, 40 F.3d 1132, 1133 (10th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). But more recently the Supreme Court’s decision in
Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001), provided a somewhat different
standard. In that case no formal order of consolidation had been entered, and the
district court found that the convictions had not been “functionally consolidated.”
Id. at 61. The Supreme Court stated the question before it as: “What standard of
review applies when a court of appeals reviews a trial court’s Sentencing
Guideline determination as to whether an offender’s prior convictions were
consolidated, hence ‘related,’ for purposes of sentencing?” Id. at 60. It answered
-3-
that the district court’s determination should be reviewed “deferentially.” Id. at
66.
Mr. Humphries argues that Buford’s holding was limited to cases of
functional consolidation, and that here we must apply de novo review because the
only issue is a legal one. We disagree. The Supreme Court’s statement of the
question presented in Buford was not so limited. Nor was the Court’s reasoning.
In Buford the Court acknowledged that the underlying facts were undisputed yet
still held that “the district court is in a better position than the appellate court to
decide whether a particular set of circumstances demonstrates ‘functional
consolidation.’” Id. at 64. The Court explained that deference is due
because a district judge sees many more “consolidations” than does
an appellate judge. As a trial judge, a district judge is likely to be
more familiar with trial and sentencing practices in general,
including consolidation procedures. And as a sentencing judge who
must regularly review and classify defendants’ criminal histories, a
district judge is more likely to be aware of which procedures the
relevant state or federal courts typically follow. Experience with
trials, sentencing, and consolidations will help that judge draw the
proper inferences from the procedural descriptions provided.
In addition, factual nuance may closely guide the legal
decision, with legal results depending heavily upon an understanding
of the significance of case-specific details.
Id. at 64-65. The Court also rejected the argument that de novo review is justified
by the benefits of uniformity:
The legal question at issue is a minor, detailed, interstitial question
of sentencing law, buried in a judicial interpretation of an application
-4-
note to a Sentencing Guideline. That question is not a generally
recurring, purely legal matter, such as interpreting a set of legal
words, say, those of an individual guideline, in order to determine
their basic intent. Nor is that question readily resolved by reference
to general legal principles and standards alone. Rather, the question
at issue grows out of, and is bounded by, case-specific detailed
factual circumstances. And the fact-bound nature of the decision
limits the value of appellate court precedent . . . .
Id. at 65-66. We therefore hold that district courts must be given deference with
respect to all decisions regarding whether convictions were consolidated. See
United States v. Horn, 355 F.3d 610, 613 (6th Cir. 2004) (Buford deference
applies to all questions of relatedness).
Under a deferential standard, we affirm the district court. It is undisputed
that four of Mr. Humphries’ prior convictions were transferred to the same court
for sentencing at the same time. But this does not necessarily indicate that they
were consolidated, as the guidelines use that term. See United States v.
Villarreal, 960 F.2d 117, 119 (10th Cir. 1992). Cases can be set together for
sentencing for practical reasons, such as “judicial economy,” that do not arise
from their relatedness. Id. at 119. That is precisely what the district court found
here. After noting its own extensive familiarity with state court procedures, the
district court rejected Mr. Humphries’ claim that the sentences had been
consolidated in the guidelines sense:
Hearkening back to my days on the state court bench,
consolidation or transfer, depending on the statutory euphemism that
you chose, really was a deliberate statutory and administrative
-5-
process . . . to achieve . . . judicial economy through uniformity and
continuity of judicial supervision and control, and simultaneously, to
eschew the very real risk of multiple proceedings focusing on one
juvenile to be conducted in multiple juvenile divisions in multiple
district courts.
And in my view, based on this record, that’s exactly what has
occurred here. In the good old days, before we recognized such
consolidations and transfers, it would have been a facile matter for a
juvenile in the circumstances of Mr. Humphries to have received
concurrent sentences all right, but then on a violation to have been
subjected to subsequent or post-adjudication and dispositional
proceedings in multiple district courts, perhaps spanning the state of
Colorado geographically.
Well, to avoid that, we got the juvenile who was involved in
multiple cases and delinquent acts under one judge in one juvenile
division of one District Court, and that’s what occurred here.
Quintessentially under the guidelines the concept of
relatedness focuses appropriately not on salutary administrative
protocol, but instead, on relatedness. Is there a common factual or
legal concatenation between or among the various cases and
delinquent acts made the focuses of the petitions. That is, is there a
single criminal episode, is there a continuing criminal episode or
enterprise, something that would make this indeed related conduct.
And here there is not. And thus, I approve, adopt and incorporate the
reasons stated, arguments advanced, and authorities cited by Mr.
Merlo in the presentence report against recognizing related conduct
here.
R. Vol. II at 16-17. The district court’s analysis is entitled to deference for the
very reasons set forth in Buford. We see no error here.
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
-6-