United States of America v. Jonathan Gregory Vega, a/k/a Jay, a/k/a Thug

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 24-2067
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JONATHAN GREGORY VEGA,
a/k/a Jay,
a/k/a Thug,
Appellant
_______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 3:22-cr-00008-001)
District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani
_______________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 6, 2025
Before: MATEY, FREEMAN, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 4, 2025)
_______________
OPINION
_______________
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
MATEY, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Jonathan Vega pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute
forty grams or more of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). He
appeals his 144-month sentence, arguing that his criminal history did not justify his
career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. We see no error in the District
Court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines.1
A defendant is considered a career offender, and subject to the corresponding
enhancement, if: 1) he “was at least eighteen years old at the time [he] committed the
instant offense of conviction”; 2) “the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is
either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense”; and 3) he “has at least two
prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.”2
§ 4B1.1(a). Section 4B1.2(c) clarifies that a defendant’s charged conduct must have
followed two felony convictions “counted separately” under § 4A1.1. Prior convictions
“always are counted separately if . . . [the] offenses . . . were separated by an intervening
arrest.” § 4A1.2(a)(2); see § 4B1.2(c). “If there is no intervening arrest, prior sentences
are counted separately unless” the offense conduct was “in the same charging instrument”
or “the sentences were imposed on the same day.” Id.
1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Whether a conviction is a predicate to
apply the career-offender enhancement “is a question of law subject to plenary review.”
United States v. Womack, 55 F.4th 219, 236 (3d Cir. 2022).
2 The parties do not dispute that Vega satisfies the first element, as he was over the
age of eighteen at the time of the instant offense. Nor does Vega offer any reason to
doubt that his 2014 and 2019 convictions were controlled substance offenses as defined
in § 4B1.2(b).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The presentence investigation report identified two drug convictions that justified
application of the career-offender enhancement. First, in 2014, Vega tried to sell 500
packets of heroin to a confidential informant. He was arrested in the act and released on
bond. Two weeks later, police found Vega with 230 more packets of heroin. Each
incident resulted in a conviction for possession with intent to deliver heroin. The
guidelines required the District Court to count these convictions separately because of the
intervening arrest. Id.; § 4B1.2(c).3 Vega argues these convictions comprised a single
offense, a “conspiracy that never ceased.” Opening Br. 9. But he was not convicted of
conspiracy, and the guidelines always separately count convictions when an arrest
intervenes. § 4A1.2(a)(2).4 Accordingly, Vega’s 2014 convictions constitute two separate
controlled substance convictions for the purposes of § 4B1.1(a), and application of the
career-offender enhancement was proper.
So we will affirm.
3 Vega cites three cases that apply language struck from the guidelines’
commentary over seventeen years ago. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 709 (effective
Nov. 1, 2007); United States v. Mora-Zapata, 94 F. App’x 63, 65–66 (3d Cir. 2004);
United States v. Martin, 749 F.3d 87, 93 n.7 (1st Cir. 2014); United States v. Withers, 267
F. Supp. 2d 836, 838 (S.D. Ohio 2003). The District Court properly applied the
guidelines in effect at Vega’s sentencing. See United States v. Lewis, 58 F.4th 764, 772
(3d Cir. 2023).
4 Vega points to § 1B1.3’s “related conduct” test and the Armed Career Criminal
Act’s “on occasions different” standard, but those inquiries are rooted in text absent from
the career-offender enhancement. § 4A1.2(a)(2).

-- 3 of 3 --