UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 22-5837 │ v. │ │ WILLIAM C. ROGERS, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at London. No. 6:22-cr-00005-1—Robert E. Wier, District Judge.

Argued: October 25, 2023

Decided and Filed: November 6, 2023

Before: McKEAGUE, READLER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Timothy Rodriguez, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. John Patrick Grant, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Timothy Rodriguez, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. John Patrick Grant, Charles P. Wisdom, Jr., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. William Rogers has a history of drug offenses. He challenges the way that history was treated in calculating his most recent criminal sentence. No. 22-5837 United States v. Rogers Page 2

Six years ago, Rogers was caught in a motel room with methamphetamine. A year later, he was found in possession of the same drug during a traffic stop. For these two incidents, Rogers was indicted for violating Kentucky drug trafficking laws, eventually receiving separate, concurrent sentences for each offense. More recently, Rogers pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute the drug in violation of federal law. Based on Rogers’s two prior offenses, the district court classified Rogers as a career offender, which raised his sentencing range and, with it, his ultimate sentence.

Rogers believes that his earlier offenses should be treated as a single prior sentence, rendering the career offender enhancement inapplicable. On this point, all agree that, in the Guidelines context, prior offenses separated by an “intervening arrest” result in distinct sentences for purposes of career offender status. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.2(a)(2), 4B1.2(c). And because Rogers was arrested (as the term is used in the Guidelines) after the motel incident but before the traffic stop, we affirm.

I.

In January 2017, officers arrived at a motel to investigate a drug trafficking tip. They discovered William Rogers sitting in one of the rooms with the door open. The room reeked of marijuana. Upon request, Rogers surrendered to the officers a small bag containing various drugs, including methamphetamine. Rogers was later taken into custody.

But he did not remain so confined. Under Kentucky law, a defendant in custody for “longer than 60 days” “without being indicted” can be released. See Ky. R. Crim. P. 5.22(3). And that apparently is what happened to Rogers. Although the evidence in the record is scant, we know Rogers was released after being taken into custody, seemingly due to a failure to indict.