UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                          No. 99-4010
JOHN FRANCIS TATHAM, JR., a/k/a
Todd Michael Goodrich,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CR-98-12)

Submitted: July 27, 1999

Decided: August 26, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Herbert C. Clay, LAW OFFICE OF HERBERT C. CLAY, Marion,
Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney,
S. Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to his guilty pleas, John Francis Tatham was convicted of
one count each of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy
to fraudulently use social security numbers and two counts of bank
fraud. On appeal, Tatham alleges that the district court erroneously
calculated his criminal history score. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.

Tatham and his wife used aliases and false social security numbers
to open checking accounts at various banks. They then "kited" checks
between different accounts, withdrew cash, and wrote worthless
checks to merchants for cash, goods, and services. 1 In preparing
Tatham's presentence report, the probation officer assigned fifty-three
criminal history points, far more than the thirteen points needed for
the highest criminal history category. Forty-two of these points were
the result of fourteen separate convictions for breaking and entering
and automobile theft. The record shows that over a one week period
in 1992 Tatham and three friends broke into fourteen vehicles, all
belonging to different victims. If the keys were in the car, they stole
it, stripped it, and sold the parts; otherwise, they simply stole items
of value. The cases were not consolidated for trial, but Tatham did
receive concurrent sentences. Tatham argued unsuccessfully at trial
that the fourteen convictions should be treated as"related" pursuant
to USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2),2 resulting in a total of only three criminal his-
tory points. The district court also departed upward from the Guide-
lines range because the criminal history category under represented
Tatham's criminal history.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Tatham and his wife ultimately caused over $48,000 in losses.
2 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1997). This section permits the
sentencing court to treat prior sentences in "related" cases as one sen-
tence for purposes of calculating a defendant's criminal history score.

                    2
Because the basic facts concerning the fourteen convictions are
undisputed, we review de novo the district court's finding that they
were not "related" under USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2). See United States v.
Rivers, 

, 141 (4th Cir. 1991). In calculating a defendant's
criminal history score, "prior sentences are considered related if they
resulted from offenses that (1) occurred on the same occasion, (2)
were part of a single common scheme or plan, or (3) were consoli-
dated for trial or sentencing." See USSG§ 4A1.2, comment. (n.3). In
the present case, it is clear from the record that the prior offenses in
question did not occur on the same occasion, nor were they consoli-
dated for trial or sentencing, and Tatham does not challenge this find-
ing. He does, however, allege that the thefts were all part of a
common scheme or plan to make money.

The burden was on Tatham to establish the existence of a common
scheme, and we find that he failed to meet this burden. See United
States v. Cowart, 

, 159 (6th Cir. 1996). Although the
Guidelines do not define "scheme" or "plan," we concur with the Sev-
enth Circuit that the terms imply a specific intent such that the "com-
mission of one [offense] would entail the commission of the other as
well." See United States v. Woods, 

, 1099 (7th Cir.
1992) (citation omitted). In other words, there must be "more than
simply a repeated pattern of criminal conduct." 

United States v. Chartier, 

, 1016 (2d Cir. 1992).
Tatham alleges that the offenses in question should be considered "re-
lated" because of their temporal and geographic proximity and
because the primary purpose behind all of the thefts was to make
money. However, these factors alone are not necessarily determinative,3
especially when the motive is merely to fund a particular lifestyle. See

Absent any evidence to the contrary, we
find that the record supports the district court's finding that Tatham's
prior offenses were merely crimes of opportunity with no overarching
plan.
_________________________________________________________________
3 See United States v. Breckenridge, 

, 138 (4th Cir. 1996);
see also United States v. Fonville, 

, 785 (4th Cir. 1993) (hold-
ing that shared motivation cannot transform prior convictions into one
illicit act).
4 After all, as a matter of common sense, the primary goal of most
thieves is to make money.

                    3
We therefore affirm Tatham's sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    4