Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-07028/USCOURTS-ca10-94-07028-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Johnny Frank Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JOHNNY FRANK WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

FILED 

UDW States Coart of AppealS T•tlaClmait 

APPEALS 

JAN 17 1995 

PATRICK FISHER . Clerk 

No. 94-7028 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CR-93-36-S) 

Craig Bryant (Stephen J. Knorr, Federal Public Defender, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, was with him on the brief) , Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the Defendant-Appellant. 

Dennis A. Fries (John Raley, United States Attorney, was with him 

on the briefs), Assistant United States Attorney, Muskogee, 

Oklahoma, for the Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before TACHA and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL, District 

Judge*. 

TACHA, Circuit Judge. 

* Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for 

the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 94-7028 Document: 01019290253 Date Filed: 01/17/1995 Page: 1 
I. Background 

On November 30, 1993, defendant Johnny Frank Williams pleaded 

guilty to disposing of stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(j). At the time of defendant's sentencing, cases were 

pending against him in Arkansas state court. In addition, 

defendant had revocation petitions pending against him in various 

cases in which he had received suspended sentences or parole. On 

February 3, 1994, defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 

seventy-eight months. The district court ordered that defendant's 

federal sentence be served consecutively to any sentence of 

imprisonment imposed "in Arkansas or Oklahoma in a case or cases 

that is now pending." 

An Arkansas state court subsequently sentenced defendant to a 

prison term of five years to be served concurrently with his 

federal sentence. On August 10, 1994, United States marshals 

returned defendant to Arkansas to complete his state sentence. 

The state informed the U.S. Marshals Service that defendant had 

satisfied his state sentence, and defendant was returned to 

federal custody on August 11, 1994 to commence his federal 

sentence. Although the state court attempted to impose a 

concurrent sentence, a federal court's determination that a 

federal sentence run consecutive to a state sentence "is a federal 

matter which cannot be overridden by a state court provision for 

concurrent sentencing on a subsequently-obtained state 

conviction." Bloomgren v. Belaski, 948 F.2d 688, 691 (lOth Cir. 

1991) . 

-2-

Appellate Case: 94-7028 Document: 01019290253 Date Filed: 01/17/1995 Page: 2 
Defendant appeals his sentence on the ground that the 

district court overstepped its authority by ordering that he serve 

his federal sentence consecutively to a state court sentence that 

had not yet been imposed. 

II. Discussion 

Whether to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence is a 

matter within the discretion of the district court. United States 

v. Russell, 905 F.2d 1450, 1457 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 498 

u.s. 904 (1990); see also United States v. Kalady, 941 F.2d 1090, 

1097 (lOth Cir. 1991). Therefore, we review the sentence imposed 

by the district court for an abuse of discretion. 

Defendant argues that the district court abused its 

discretion in ordering the defendant's sentence to run 

consecutively to any sentence imposed in any case then pending in 

Arkansas or Oklahoma. Such a sentence is an abuse of the court's 

discretion, defendant argues, because 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) does not 

give federal courts the authority to order that a federal sentence 

be served consecutively to a sentence that has not yet been 

imposed. Defendant relies on the first sentence of section 

3584(a), which states that "if a term of imprisonment is imposed 

on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of 

imprisonment, the terms may run consecutively." Defendant 

interprets this language as forbidding the district court from 

ordering a consecutive sentence unless the other sentence is one 

that the defendant is "already subject to" at the time his federal 

sentence is imposed. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 94-7028 Document: 01019290253 Date Filed: 01/17/1995 Page: 3 
We disagree with defendant's interpretation of the statute. 

Section 3584(a) states: 

If multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a 

defendant at the same time, or if a term of imprisonment 

is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an 

undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run 

concurrently or consecutively, except that the terms may 

not run consecutively for an attempt and for another 

offense that was the sole objective of the attempt. 

Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time 

run concurrently unless the court orders or the statute 

mandates that the terms are to run consecutively. 

Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different 

times run consecutively unless the court orders that the 

terms are to run concurrently. 

The plain meaning of this provision is that multiple terms of 

imprisonment imposed at different times will normally run 

consecutively, unless the district court affirmatively orders that 

the terms be served concurrently. See United States v. Rising, 

867 F.2d 1255, 1260 (lOth Cir. 1989). We find no language in 

section 3584(a) prohibiting a district court from ordering that a 

federal sentence be served consecutively to a state sentence that 

has not yet been imposed. Moreover, we note that our holding is 

in agreement with the majority of circuit courts that have 

addressed this question. United States v. Ballard, 6 F.3d 1502, 

1510 (11th Cir. 1993); United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1217 

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 925 (1991); Salley v. United 

States, 786 F.2d 546, 547 (2d Cir. 1986) .1 Contra United States 

v. Clayton, 927 F.2d 491, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1991). 

1 Defendant's reliance on the concurring op1n1on in Salley is 

unpersuasive. See Salley, 786 F.2d at 548 (Newman, J., 

concurring) (expressing disagreement with the majority's view that 

a district court has authority to impose a sentence consecutive to 

a not yet imposed sentence) . Although the opinion does not rely 

on section 3584(a), we find the majority's reasoning persuasive 

and supportive of our holding. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 94-7028 Document: 01019290253 Date Filed: 01/17/1995 Page: 4 
Finally, while we agree with defendant that criminal 

sentences must be definite and certain, Anderson v. United States, 

405 F.2d 492, 493 (lOth Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 

965 (1969), the sentence imposed here does not violate the 

Anderson principle. In Anderson, the sentencing court ordered the 

defendant's sentence to "run consecutive to any confinement under 

which defendant is being held by state authorities." Id. at 492. 

The Anderson court held that this sentence was both definite and 

certain. Id. at 493. Defendant's seventy-eight month sentence 

commences upon completion of any state sentence imposed in a case 

that was pending at the time the federal district court sentenced 

him. Like the sentence imposed in Anderson, defendant's sentence 

is definite and certain. 

III. Conclusion 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering 

defendant's sentence to run consecutive to any sentence imposed 

against defendant in any pending case. Defendant's sentence is 

therefore AFFIRMED. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 94-7028 Document: 01019290253 Date Filed: 01/17/1995 Page: 5