US v. Mollo
Case Date: 12/22/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 97-1922
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 97-1922 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. ARTHUR J. MOLLO, III, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge ___________ Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Richard R. Beauchesne and Peters & Associates, P.A. on brief for _____________________ _________________________ appellant. Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, George T. Dilworth and ________________ ___________________ Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for _____________________ appellee. ____________________ December 17, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam. Upon careful review, we conclude that the __________ district court did not err in sentencing appellant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). Appellant contends that he did not have the requisite three convictions for offenses committed on "occasions different from one another," because two of his three predicate offenses were committed on the same day: on February 25, 1987, at 8:40 p.m., appellant and an accomplice attempted to rob a liquor store in Greenwich, Connecticut; and 30 minutes later on the same date, appellant and the same accomplice robbed a variety store in Stamford, Connecticut. We reject that contention. Those two crimes, committed at different times against different victims in different locations, both qualified as predicate offenses for ACCA purposes. See United States v. Hudspeth, 42 F.3d 1015, 1020- ___ _____________ ________ 22 (7th Cir. 1994). Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___ -2- |