By: Derek Hawkins//August 8, 2016//
7th Circuit court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. George E. Robey
Case No.: 15-2172
Officials: EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges
Focus: Sentencing
Courts relevant conduct determination was adequately based on findings of a common scheme or plan.
“Robey’s main argument against a “common scheme or plan,” focuses on the temporal “gap” between the charged and uncharged vehicles. Robey’s assertion is belied by the record—there was only a four‐month “gap” between the latest uncharged vehicle stolen on December 16, 2010 and the earliest charged vehicle on April 17, 2011. (PSR ¶ 21.) Further‐ more, the multiple commonalities discussed above “more than suffice” to overcome any alleged temporal “gap” and support the court’s relevant conduct determination. Baines, 777 F.3d at 963–64 (rejecting defendant’s temporal gap argument as “hollow” because the offenses were connected by “multiple common factors”)”
Affirmed