United States v. Martin, 749 F.3d 87

In 2001 Nicole Martin participated in two undercover controlled heroin purchases: Sept. 27 in Bass Harbor and Oct. 11 in Bar Harbor. Each purchase led to separate prosecutions and convictions (federal for Sept.; state for Oct.).
Sentences for the 2001 offenses were imposed on consecutive days (Sept. 10 federal; Sept. 11 state) and ran concurrently.
In 2007 Martin was stopped, found with heroin, cocaine, and oxycodone, and pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute three controlled substances.
At sentencing for the 2007 offense, the Probation Office recommended career-offender treatment under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on the two prior felony drug convictions; career-offender status dramatically increased the Guidelines range.
Martin argued the two 2001 convictions should be treated as a single prior sentence because they were part of a "single common scheme or plan" (and also pointed to the near-concurrent sentencing), so she would not meet § 4B1.1's two-prior-felony requirement.
The district court held the 2001 offenses were not part of a single common scheme or plan (no evidence Martin planned the second deal at the time of the first), treated the priors separately, designated Martin a career offender, and sentenced her to 108 months; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	United States' Argument	Martin's Argument	Held
Whether Martin's two 2001 drug convictions count as two prior felony controlled-substance convictions for career-offender purposes under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1	The convictions arose on different dates, in different towns, from different suppliers and thus are unrelated and must be counted separately	The two transactions were part of a single common scheme or plan (same investigation, proximate time/area); sentences were effectively consolidated, so priors should be treated as one	The court held the priors were not part of a single common scheme or plan and thus count separately for career-offender status; career-offender designation affirmed

United States v. Elwell, 984 F.2d 1289 (1st Cir. 1993) ("common scheme or plan" language should be given its ordinary meaning)
United States v. Godin, 489 F.3d 431 (1st Cir. 2007) ("scheme or plan" implies connective tissue—an initial plan or sequence of steps toward a single end; factual similarity alone is insufficient)
United States v. Joy, 192 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 1999) (crimes are part of a single scheme only if defendant intended both from the outset or one crime necessarily involved the other)
United States v. Marrero, 299 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2002) (test examines whether the second crime was anticipated and planned when the original crime was committed)