Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Stallard, 4th Cir. (2009)
United States v. Stallard, 4th Cir. (2009)
United States v. Stallard, 4th Cir. (2009)
No. 08-4113
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00041-jpj-pms-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Nicholas Emory Stallard pled guilty to bank robbery,
18
U.S.C.
commit
2113(a),
bank
robbery
2
and
(2006)
to
(Count
possess,
1),
and
conceal,
conspiracy
or
dispose
to
of
received
imprisonment.
career
offender
sentence
of
151
months
We affirm.
in
Grayson
County,
Virginia.
He
also
had
federal
with
the
January
1999
drug
conviction.
At
to
qualify
for
sentencing
as
career
Under
offender,
did
not
meet
those
Stallards prior
conditions.
The
court
also
stated that, even if the issue were determined under the 2006
guidelines, it would not find that the prior convictions were
part of the same course of conduct because they were committed
in different localities, and on widely separate dates, even
though they involve[d] the same offense.
Although
courts
use
of
the
Stallard
2007
did
not
Guidelines
question
Manual
at
the
district
sentencing,
he
Under USSG
date
the
instead. 6
offense
of
conviction
was
committed
is
applied
was
career
offender
under
the
2007
committed
committed
in
in
June
1998,
the
federal
January
1999,
and
the
924(c)
Grayson
offense
County
he
cocaine
This
on appeal,
Olano, 507
errors have
did
not
challenge
the
accuracy
of
his
the
government
failed
to
prove
that
he
was
career
rule
(sentencing
does
not
apply
at
court
may
consider
sentencing.
any
relevant
USSG
First, the
6A1.3(a)
information
to
sentencing
was
not
erroneous
in
any
significant
respect.
Stallards
principal
argument
is
that,
under
of
defendants
prior
felony
To determine
convictions
are
counted
related
if
they
resulted
USSG 4A1.2(a)(2).
offenses
that
(1)
or
plan,
sentencing.
or
(3)
were
consolidated
for
trial
or
the district court did not err in finding that Stallards prior
offenses were not part of a common scheme or plan.
We
district
facts
therefore
court.
and
legal
We
affirm
dispense
contentions
the
with
are
sentence
oral
imposed
argument
adequately
by
the
because
the
presented
in
the
materials
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED