UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-4299

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HOWARD C. GUTHRIE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-171)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert E. Frank, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Howard C. Guthrie pled guilty to one count of receiving mate- rials involving the sexual exploitation of minors, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(2) (West Supp. 1996), and a second count of possession of materials involving the sexual exploitation of minors. 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 2252(a)(4)(B) (West Supp. 1996). He appeals his 24-month sen- tence, contending that the district court erred in determining that three prior sentences for driving under the influence were separate offenses rather than related offenses. Finding no error, we affirm.

Guthrie was arrested for driving under the influence on June 14, 1989, again on July 3, 1989, and once more on July 4, 1989. He was sentenced for the last two convictions on the same day, but the cases were not consolidated. Prior sentences may not be treated as one in determining a defendant's criminal history if they were for offenses separated by an intervening arrest. USSG § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3).* Because Guthrie's three DUI sentences were for offenses which were separated by intervening arrests, the district court did not err in finding that they were unrelated cases and assigning one criminal history point for each.

The sentence imposed by the district court is therefore af- firmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

* United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.

1995).

AFFIRMED