United States v. Fries, No. 13-10654 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of unlawful possession of unregistered destructive devices and appealed his sentence of 60 months' imprisonment. The court concluded that the district court did not err in including defendant's prior convictions for the severed counts in its computation of defendant's criminal history score. In this case, the district court’s inclusion of defendant's convictions for use of a chemical weapon and for making a false statement in the calculation of his criminal history complied with U.S.S.G. 4A1.2. Defendant's prior concurrent sentences for use of a chemical weapon and making false statements were prior sentences under U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(a)(1) because they involved conduct that was unrelated to his possession of unregistered destructive devices. However, the court concluded that they did not constitute multiple sentences under U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(a)(2). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. Affirming a sentence for unlawful possession of unregistered destructive devices, the panel rejected the defendant’s contention that the district court impermissibly included his prior convictions for false statements and use of a chemical weapon, which were severed from the unregistered device charges, in calculating the defendant’s criminal history category. The panel held that the district court properly calculated the defendant’s criminal history pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2. The panel explained that the defendant’s prior concurrent sentences for use of a chemical weapon and making false statements were prior sentences under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(1) because they involved conduct that was unrelated to the defendant’s possession of unregistered destructive devices; and that the prior concurrent sentences did not constitute multiple sentences under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that he was punished for successfully severing the unrelated counts. UNITED STATES V. FRIES 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.