UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 95-40052
Summary Calendar
_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GEORGE EDWIN JEANISE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(1:93 CR 99 1)
_________________________________________________________________
August 10, 1995
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:*
Appellant Jeanise pleaded guilty to possession of a fire-
arm by a convicted felon and was sentenced to imprisonment for 100
months, followed by three years supervised release. On appeal, he
asserts two errors in the district court's calculation of his
sentence. We affirm.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no
precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled
principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
First, Jeanise contends that his three prior convictions
for burglary of a habitation should have been treated as related
offenses pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). In such event, they
would have received three criminal history points rather than the
nine assessed by the district court. Prior sentences are
considered related according to this guideline if they resulted
from offenses that occurred on the same occasion, were part of a
common scheme or plan, or were consolidated for trial or
sentencing. They are not considered related if the offense conduct
was separated by an intervening arrest. Section 4A1.2, comment 3.
Jeanise's first burglary took place July 18, 1977, and he was
arrested for it. The second and third burglaries occurred on
September 15, 1977 and May 8, 1978, and he was arrested for both on
September 1, 1978. Because of the intervening arrest, the first
offense cannot be considered related. And it is fruitless to
assert that the second and third offenses were "part of a common
scheme or plan". A relatedness finding requires more than mere
similarity of crimes. United States v. Garcia, 962 F.2d 479, 482
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 293 (1992). Further, state
court records show the burglaries were not consolidated for trial
or sentence.
Second, Jeanise argues that the district court erred in
finding that he possessed a prohibited firearm pursuant to section
2K2.1(a)(1), because he did not know that the barrel of the shotgun
he had was less than 18 inches long. In United States v. Fry, 51
F.3d 543, 546 (5th Cir. 1995), this court concluded that section
2
2K2.1(a)(3), which sets the base offense level for a one-time felon
for possession of a firearm listed in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a), did not
require a finding of knowledge about the characteristics of the
firearm. By the same reasoning, the related section applicable to
Jeanise's sentence also lacks reference to a mental state.
Consequently, Jeanise's alleged ignorance that the shotgun barrel
was less than 18 inches long is irrelevant to this sentencing
provision.
The sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED.
3