United States v. Francisco Hernandez, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7109

Hernandez pleaded guilty to distributing more than five grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),(b)(1).
He was sentenced to 100 months, at the bottom of the advisory range.
The presentence report counted a 2011 state conviction for November 2010 possession with intent to deliver as a prior sentence, granting three criminal history points.
Hernandez asserted the 2011 conviction was based on relevant conduct from the same supplier and should not count as a prior sentence.
The district court rejected this, holding the 2011 conviction was a separate and distinct offense and not relevant conduct.
On appeal, Hernandez argued the prior conduct was relevant conduct; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, applying a clear-error standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prior state conviction was a prior sentence or relevant conduct	Hernandez argues the 2011 conviction was based on relevant conduct.	Hernandez contends the 2011 conviction should not be counted as a prior sentence.	District court did not clearly err; the 2011 conviction was a prior sentence.

United States v. Pinkin, 675 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2012) (prior sentence vs. relevant conduct framework)
United States v. Weiland, 284 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2002) (explains severable offenses and 4A1.2/1B1.3 interplay)
United States v. Davidson, 195 F.3d 402 (8th Cir. 1999) (severable distinct offense vs. relevant conduct)
United States v. Ault, 598 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 2010) (uncharged conduct not part of instant offense unless relevant)
United States v. Spence, 125 F.3d 1192 (8th Cir. 1997) (context for relevant conduct in base offense)
United States v. Boroughf, 649 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2011) (clear-error standard for 4A1.2/1B1.3 determinations)