UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4703
EDWARD ALLEN PINERO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-97-37)
Submitted: June 17, 1999
Decided: June 25, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
J. Lloyd Snook, III, SNOOK & HAUGHEY, P.C., Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney,
Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Edward Allen Pinero1 entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess
crack cocaine with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994),
possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a) (1994), and distribution of crack cocaine, see 21 U.S.C.
§ 841. Pinero was sentenced as a career offender to 262 months
imprisonment. He contends on appeal that the district court erred in
sentencing him as a career offender. We affirm.
A defendant is a career offender if (1) he was at least eighteen
years old when he committed the instant offense, (2) the instant
offense is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled
substance offense, and (3) he has at least two prior felony convictions
of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. See
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (1998). The two prior
felonies must be counted separately in computing his criminal history.
See USSG § 4B1.2(c). Pinero met all these conditions. Although he
raised an objection to the probation officer's recommendation that he
be sentenced as a career offender, he withdrew the objection at the
sentencing hearing.2 On appeal, he contends that his two prior felony
drug convictions were related cases and should be treated as one sen-
tence in calculating his criminal history. See USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2) &
comment. (n.3).
We review the issue under the plain error standard because it was
not preserved for appeal. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
732 (1993) (alleged error not preserved by timely objection will be
_________________________________________________________________
1 Appellant's name is spelled"Pineiro" on some court documents.
2 Pinero's short-lived objection to career offender status in the district
court was based on his belief that he was sentenced for both prior
offenses at the same time. His memory proved to be faulty.
2
noticed only if error occurred which was plain, affected defendant's
substantial rights, and must be corrected to protect fairness, integrity,
or public reputation of judicial proceedings). Because Pinero was
arrested for the first prior drug offense before he committed the sec-
ond prior drug offense, the two cases cannot be related cases. Under
Application Note 3 to § 4A1.2, prior sentences are not considered
related if they are separated by an intervening arrest, even if the two
offenses were part of a common scheme or plan. Pinero was properly
sentenced as a career offender.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3