UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-30506
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REGINALD LASTRAPES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(94-CR-20057)
December 1, 1995
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reginald Lastrapes appeals the sentence imposed for distribution of crack cocaine.
Concluding that the district court failed to give adequate consideration to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3
in imposing Lastrapes’ sentence, we VACATE and REMAND for resentencing.
BACKGROUND
Lastrapes pled guilty to the intentional distribution of cocaine base, or “crack,” in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The district court found him to be a career
*
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the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.
offender and sentenced him to a term of 188 months of imprisonment to be followed by 5
years supervised release. The court ordered that this federal sentence should be served
consecutive to undischarged state sentences for which Lastrapes currently is incarcerated.
Lastrapes timely appeals.
ANALYSIS
Lastrapes first challenges the district court’s ruling that his two prior felony
convictions were unrelated and therefore may be treated separately in determining his career
offender status under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.1 We review that determination de novo.2
Lastrapes’ prior convictions arose out of two separate arrests for two separate
incidents of cocaine distribution.3 Although Lastrapes received concurrent sentences for
these offenses which were imposed on the same day by the same state trial judge, we do not
presume these prior convictions to be “related” merely because the resulting sentences run
concurrently.4 Nor are we persuaded by Lastrapes’ unsubstantiated supposition that the state
judge “felt that the charges were related.”5 In the absence of an evidentiary showing of a
“close factual relationship” or a formal legal connection between the two prior convictions,
1
To qualify as a career offender a defendant must be at least 18 years of age at the time
of the federal offense, which must be either a crime of violence or a drug offense, and the
defendant must have at least two unrelated prior felony convictions for such offenses.
U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.2(a)(2), 4B1.1; United States v. Garcia, 962 F.2d 479 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, U.S. , 113 S.Ct. 293, 131 L.Ed.2d 217 (1992).
2
United States v. Ford, 996 F.2d 83 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 704 (1994).
3
Lastrapes was arrested on April 20, 1990, for distributing cocaine on January 9, 1990,
and was arrested the second time on July 21, 1992, for distributing cocaine on March 6,
1992. He pled guilty to both offenses on October 19, 1992.
4
Garcia.
5
The state judge’s decision to impose both sentences on the same day appears to be more
a matter of docket management and convenience than a statement regarding the
“relationship” of the two convictions.
2
we find no error in the district court’s ruling.6
Lastrapes also challenges the district court’s determination that his federal sentence
should be served consecutive to his state sentence. Lastrapes maintains that the district court
did not give proper consideration to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. That section specifically addresses
the circumstance of a federal defendant, like Lastrapes, who is serving an undischarged state
sentence at the time of federal sentencing. The record persuades us that the district court was
under the impression that it lacked the authority to impose the federal sentence concurrent
to Lastrapes’ undischarged state sentences. We therefore must conclude that this claim has
merit, which requires that we vacate Lastrapes’ sentence and remand for resentencing. Upon
remand the district court should determine the applicability vel non of subsections (a)-(c) of
section 5G1.3, making its findings and conclusions a part of the record.7
VACATED and REMANDED.
6
United States v. Bryant, 991 F.2d 171, 177 (5th Cir. 1993).
7
United States v. Hernandez, 64 F.3d 179 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Torrez, 40
F.3d 84 (5th Cir. 1994).
3