IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                       _____________________

                            No. 95-10379
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellee,

                              versus

AARON LYNN McDANIEL,

                                               Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Northern District of Texas
                         (4:95-CR-12-Y-1)
_________________________________________________________________
                       (September 28, 1995)

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

  On appeal, Lynn McDaniel argues that his two prior convictions

should have been treated as related cases and treated as one

sentence under U.S.S.G § 4A1.2(a)(2). According to the presentence

investigation report, the cases were not consolidated, occurred on

different dates, and involved separate offense conduct.        The

concurrent sentences, however, were handed down on the same day.

     *
     Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
  In United States v. Garcia, 

(5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 

(1992), the court observed that cases need

not   be   considered   consolidated    because   two   convictions   have

concurrent sentences. See also United States v. Ford, 

,

85-86 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding sentences for four methamphetamine

deliveries in six-day period not related under § 4A1.2(a)(2)),

cert. denied, 

(1994).         McDaniel's claim that his

cases were related because he was given concurrent sentences must

fail.      He has not shown under this court's precedent that the

district court erred by treating each conviction as a separate case

for purposes of calculating criminal history points.

  The judgment of the district court is

                                                        A F F I R M E D.




                                  -2-