USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-1922
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
ARTHUR J. MOLLO, III,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge ___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Richard R. Beauchesne and Peters & Associates, P.A. on brief for _____________________ _________________________
appellant.
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, George T. Dilworth and ________________ ___________________
Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for _____________________
appellee.
____________________
December 17, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Upon careful review, we conclude that the __________
district court did not err in sentencing appellant under the
Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1).
Appellant contends that he did not have the requisite
three convictions for offenses committed on "occasions
different from one another," because two of his three
predicate offenses were committed on the same day: on
February 25, 1987, at 8:40 p.m., appellant and an accomplice
attempted to rob a liquor store in Greenwich, Connecticut;
and 30 minutes later on the same date, appellant and the same
accomplice robbed a variety store in Stamford, Connecticut.
We reject that contention. Those two crimes, committed
at different times against different victims in different
locations, both qualified as predicate offenses for ACCA
purposes. See United States v. Hudspeth, 42 F.3d 1015, 1020- ___ _____________ ________
22 (7th Cir. 1994).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___
-2-