Wicks appeals from his conviction for felony possession of a firearm under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. App. 1202(a) (repealed 1986). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Wicks was sentenced to 15 years incarceration under section 1202(a), which provides in part that:
[i]n the case of a person who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce ... any firearm and who has three previous convictions by [a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof] for robbery or burglary ... such person shall be ... imprisoned not less than fifteen years....
Wicks contends that his conviction under the statute is invalid because two of his three predicate burglary convictions resulted from burglaries that occurred on the same night (though at different locations), that were prosecuted together, and that resulted in concurrent sentences. He argues that it is inappropriate to apply the statute to a person in his position because the statute was designed to treat the problem of career criminals and career criminals are criminals who “have failed in rehabilitation after three successive prosecutions.” He contends that no rehabilitation was possible between the two burglaries which were committed on the same day and resulted in concurrent sentences imposed at the same time. Thus, Wicks concludes, these two burglaries cannot be considered as two predicate convictions under the statute. We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Mobil Sales & Supply Corp. v. Panamax Venus, 804 F.2d 541, 542 (9th Cir.1986) (Mobil).
When we interpret a statute, the starting point must be the language of the statute itself. Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 60, 100 S.Ct. 915, 918, 63 L.Ed.2d 198 (1980) (Lewis). Section 1202(a) refers to “a person ... who has three previous convictions ... for robbery or burglary.” As the Supreme Court pointed out in Lewis, “[n]o modifier is present” in the relevant portion of section 1202(a), “and nothing suggests any restriction on the scope of the term ‘convicted.’ ” Lewis, 445 U.S. at 60, 100 S.Ct. at 918. The plain language of the statute contradicts Wicks’s contention; the language encompasses any person with three predicate convictions, whenever obtained. We hold therefore that Wicks’s conviction under the statute was not error. To Wicks’s contention that this result is anomalous because simultaneous convictions do not evidence “career” criminality, we respond that “if one must ignore the plain language of a statute to avoid a possibly anomalous result, ‘ “[t]he short answer is that Congress did not write the statute that way.” ’ ” North Carolina Department of Transportation v. Crest Street Community Council, Inc., — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 336, 341, 93 L.Ed.2d 188 (1986), quoting Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 79, 104 S.Ct. 296 (1984), quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 105 S.Ct. 479, 485, 83 L.Ed.2d 472 (1983).
Wicks also contends that the legislative history of section 1202 supports his interpretation of the statute. Resort to the legislative history is neither necessary nor appropriate in this case. “Unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise, ‘when we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete.’ ” Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 1855, 1860, 95 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987), quoting Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430, 101 S.Ct. 698, 701, 66 L.Ed.2d 633 (1981). We find no exceptional circumstances here. “[W]e look first to the statutory language and then to the legislative history if the statutory language is unclear.” Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184 n. 29, 98 S.Ct. 2279, n. 29, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978) (emphasis added); see also Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. *194886, 896, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1548, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984); Mobil, 804 F.2d at 542. The statutory language is clear. But even if it was not, the legislative history is not inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statute. The Report of the House Committee on the Judiciary indicates that section 1202(a) was directed at repeat offenders and “the most serious offenders in a locality.” H.R.Rep. No. 1073, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 3661, 3663.
Most robberies and burglaries are committed by career criminals. A high percentage of robberies and burglaries are committed by a limited number of repeat offenders. Many commit scores of offenses .... [T]he majority of these offenses are committed by career criminals.
This history tracks the statutory language.
The dissent relies on United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2 (8th Cir.1987) (Petty), to reach the conclusion that Congress did not intend section 1202(a) “to apply to individuals like Wicks who received two out of three convictions for two acts of burglary occurring on the same night.” Dissent at 194-195. We disagree.
In Petty, the Eighth Circuit held that a defendant’s six convictions for six armed robberies committed simultaneously were insufficient to justify imposing an enhanced sentence under section 1202(a). Petty expressly recognized the distinction, however, between convictions for simultaneous robberies and convictions for robberies distinct in time. The court stated that it accepted the Solicitor General’s argument that section 1202(a) “was intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time....” Undeniably, Wicks, unlike Petty, committed two burglaries at two different places at two different times. Petty does not require that we reach a contrary result.
AFFIRMED.