
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1922                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                ARTHUR J. MOLLO, III,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]                                          ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge                                           ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Richard R. Beauchesne and  Peters & Associates, P.A. on brief  for            _____________________      _________________________        appellant.            Jay P. McCloskey, United  States Attorney, George  T. Dilworth and            ________________                           ___________________        Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for        _____________________        appellee.                                 ____________________                                  December 17, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   Upon careful review, we conclude  that the                 __________            district court did not err  in sentencing appellant under the            Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C.   924(e)(1).                  Appellant  contends that he  did not have  the requisite            three  convictions  for  offenses  committed  on   "occasions            different  from  one  another,"  because  two  of  his  three            predicate  offenses  were  committed  on the  same  day:   on            February 25,  1987, at 8:40 p.m., appellant and an accomplice            attempted  to rob a  liquor store in  Greenwich, Connecticut;            and 30 minutes later on the same date, appellant and the same            accomplice robbed a variety store in Stamford, Connecticut.                   We  reject that contention.  Those two crimes, committed            at  different times  against different  victims  in different            locations,  both qualified  as  predicate  offenses for  ACCA            purposes.  See United States v. Hudspeth, 42 F.3d 1015, 1020-                       ___ _____________    ________            22 (7th Cir. 1994).                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
