CA1: they really were not related crimes

US v. Godin, No. 06-1749 affirms sentence of an armed robber. The First lays out her point:

On this appeal, Godin says the question whether she qualified as a career offender should have been determined by a jury. The Supreme Court has so far declined to extend the sixth amendment prohibition on judicial fact-finding that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum to situations where the question is whether the defendant has previously been convicted of a crime.

She argues that under “Shepard v. United   States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), a jury is now required at least to determine whether her prior burglaries were related or not.” This actually makes a fair amount of sense. After all, why should judges determine whether two prior crimes are “related.” But, the First decides that the way to determine whether crimes are related is by looking at the docket sheets and judgments. Therefore, a similar motive isn’t enough to make the crimes “related.”

Anyway, the First does reject a lot of guideline construction arguments, which probably need more dissection. 

SL&P sees it a bit differently here.