the district court on his behalf, the facts of the case, and Jebril’s health. Based on these factors, Jebril asked to be sentenced at the bottom of the recommended Guidelines. Jebril did not, however, explicitly ask the district court to sentence him below the recommended Guidelines. Prior to sentencing, the district court outlined its reasoning. It noted that it read and considered all of the letters provided. It explained that it could not reconcile the man portrayed in those letters with the defendant it witnessed in court. Eventually, the district court sentenced Jebril to fifty-eight months on each felony count and twelve months on each misdemeanor count, to be d” because they “were committed within a short period of time.” United States v. Alford, 436 F.3d 677, 684 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Prior crimes are not considered “related”
holding that separate instances of harassment committed against the same victim were not related because the defendant did not jointly plan the crimes holding that plan did not comply holding that two robberies committed within hours of each other were not part of a common scheme or plan when the defendant did not originally plan to rob his second victim holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant