United States of America v. Raymond Craig

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1963
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Raymond Craig
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: April 10, 2023
Filed: May 18, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Raymond Craig appeals his sentences, arguing that the district court1 should
have ordered that they run concurrently with an undischarged term of imprisonment
imposed by a different court. In 2018, Craig participated in a string of robberies
1 The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
organized by a gang in Indianapolis. On June 21, Craig robbed a CVS Pharmacy in
Jonesboro, Arkansas, and CC Food Mart in Greenville, Illinois. In Jonesboro, Craig
zip tied the cashier’s hands while another person threatened the cashier with a gun,
and in Greenville, Craig appeared to try to buy cigars and then left before another
person entered and robbed the store. That same day, the leader of the conspiracy
messaged someone in Craig’s car to rob five other pharmacies, including one in
Jefferson City, Missouri. On July 25, Craig and two others robbed a Walgreens in
Jefferson City.
For the Jefferson City robbery, Craig pleaded guilty in the Western District of
Missouri to interference with commerce and brandishing a firearm, see 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1951(a), 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and had been sentenced to 135 months’ imprisonment.
He faced similar § 1951(a) charges for the two June robberies in the judicial districts
where they occurred—the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Southern District of
Illinois. After his Illinois case was transferred to the Eastern District of Arkansas,
see Fed. R. Crim. P. 20(a), Craig pleaded guilty to one count of interference with
commerce in each case. With a total offense level of 24 and a criminal-history
category of II, his advisory sentencing guidelines range was 57 to 71 months’
imprisonment for each offense.
Craig requested that his sentences for the June robberies run concurrently with
his sentence for the July robbery, claiming that the July robbery is relevant conduct
to the June robberies under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b). That guidelines section requires
the sentence for an offense to run concurrently with an undischarged term of
imprisonment that “resulted from another offense that is relevant conduct to the
instant offense of conviction.” Id.; see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. However, the district court
found that the July robbery is not relevant conduct and otherwise declined to exercise
its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3584 to run the sentences for the June robberies
concurrently with the sentence for the July robbery. The court reasoned that running
the sentences concurrently would allow Craig “to get freebies on crimes that are 30
days apart from each other.”

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
The district court then considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
“specifically as to each particular count” and “wholistically to make sure I don’t feel
like what I have given you on each specific count adds up to more time than you
should get.” The court did not think the statutory maximum would be appropriate
given Craig’s prior sentence for the July robbery. It concluded that the “right number
overall,” taking into account his previous sentence, was 99 months’ imprisonment
to run consecutively with the 135-month sentence previously imposed—71 months
for the Jonesboro robbery and 28 months for the Greenville robbery. The court
varied downward to 28 months for the Greenville robbery because Craig was not
inside the store when the robbery occurred. The court also indicated that, even if its
relevant-conduct determination was wrong, upon resentencing it would “re jigger[]”
each sentence to create the same cumulative sentence because it “look[s] at this
wholistically.”
We review de novo whether the district court properly applied § 5G1.3.
United States v. Winnick, 954 F.3d 1103, 1104 (8th Cir. 2020). Craig argues that the
district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the July robbery as relevant
conduct to the June offenses. But even if the district court erred, the error is harmless
if it did not affect the court’s sentencing conclusion. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a);
United States v. Moody, 930 F.3d 991, 993 (8th Cir. 2019). Here, the district court
made sufficiently clear that it would have imposed the same cumulative sentence
whether the sentences were concurrent or consecutive: the court clearly declined to
exercise its discretion to run the sentences concurrently with the sentence for the
July robbery, determined “the right number overall,” considered the sentences
“wholistically,” and said it would “re jigger[]” each sentence if its relevant-conduct
determination was wrong. We therefore find that any error was harmless and affirm
Craig’s sentences.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --