United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2371

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Hunter Dean Bonnell

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________

Submitted: May 13, 2019

Filed: August 2, 2019

[Published]

____________

Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Hunter Dean Bonnell pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced him

1

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa. 
to 84 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to his undischarged state sentences. He

appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 

The parties agree U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) controls here:

In any other case involving an undischarged term of imprisonment, the

sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run concurrently,

partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged term

of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant

offense. 

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) (emphasis added). See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (“[I]f 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.”) (emphasis

added). Section 5G1.3(d) does not require a federal sentence to run consecutive to

an undischarged state sentence. See United States v. Becker, 636 F.3d 402, 408 (8th

Cir. 2011) (“[A] district court has the discretion to impose a sentence concurrently or

consecutively.”). 

Bonnell challenges the application of section 5G1.3(d), arguing the district

court erred “in concluding that a consecutive sentence wasrequired.” This court first

looks for procedural error, United States v. Thorne, 896 F.3d 861, 864 (8th Cir.

2018), reviewing “the district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences for

reasonableness.” United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2010),

citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). However, Bonnell did not object

to consecutive sentences at sentencing. This court reviews for plain error. Under

plain error review, Bonnell must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects

substantial rights, and (4) that “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Keller, 413 F.3d 706, 710 (8th

Cir. 2005), quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997). 

-2-
The district court said:

Now, realistically the state systemis very, very overcrowded the way the

federal system is so what we see happen typically is you get a sentence

of this size, you get an 84-month sentence, the states sees that, and they

immediately kick you to the federal government so in practical terms,

even if I run these sentences consecutively, which I think under the

Guidelines and under various case law is the right thing to do, in

practical terms it doesn’t mean you are going to do two complete

sentences. I have yet to see the state actually keep somebody when they

know the federal government wants them and so I do order here,

because these were separate convictions, they’re serious convictions,

and your revocation had little to do or was only in part based upon what

happened that brought you to Federal Court, I do order these sentences

to run consecutively, the federal sentence to run consecutively to the

state sentence as noted in PSR Paragraphs 36, 38, and 39; but in

practical terms, Mr. Bonnell, they’re going to almost immediately give

you to the federal prison sentence and so that will discharge your state

sentence. 

Now, if that doesn’t happen, let me know; but I am guessing that within

a period of months that is what is going to happen. 

The district court did not plainly err. Nothing in the record indicates the court

“concluded that it was required to impose a consecutive sentence.” Rather, it

recognized the Sentencing Guidelines as “advisory,” and noted its options of

imposing the sentence to “run concurrently or consecutively or some combination

thereof.” See Rutherford, 599 F.3d at 821 (“A sentencing court should consider the

Guidelines calculation as a first step to finding a reasonable sentence,” but not one

that mandates a result). The court reasoned that a consecutive sentence was “the right

thing to do” based on the Guidelines and case law. As the record shows, the district

court properly interpreted section 5G1.3 as discretionary, not mandatory. 

-3-
The district court’s discussion ofthe prison systemin practical terms also is not

error. See Becker, 636 F.3d at 406 (the district court did not plainly err in making

comments that “were merely an academic discussion” of “what might happen in the

state system”). The district judge acknowledged she was “guessing” when Bonnell

would be released to federal custody. See id., at 407-08 (no plain error when the

sentencing court recognized the possibility of early parole was a “great unknown”). 

“The district court did not base its decision to impose a consecutive sentence solely

on the possibility of [Bonnell’s] early release from state prison. Moreover, that

possibility was not a clearly improper consideration.” See United States v. James,

428 F. Appx. 533, 536 (6th Cir. 2011). In fact, the court properly considered “[t]he

time served on the undischarged sentence and the time likely to be served before

release,” “[t]he fact that the prior undischarged sentence may have been imposed in

state court rather than federal court,” and “[a]ny other circumstance relevant to the

determination of an appropriate sentence.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d), cmt. n.4(A)(iii–v). 

Even if Bonnell could show error, his claim fails at step three of plain-error

review. He must show a “reasonable probability” that but for the error he would have

received a more favorable sentence. United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 547 (8th

Cir. 2005) (en banc). The district court thoroughly reviewed Bonnell’s criminal

history, mental health, career aspirations, family circumstances, parole options, and

need for the sentence imposed. The district court said that it “considered all of the

factors under 3553(a) and the advisoryGuidelines.” See United States v. Latham, 667

F. Appx. 594, 595 (8th Cir. 2016) (“The district court’s thorough discussion of the

§ 3553(a) factors leaves no doubt why it imposed a consecutive sentence.”). Bonnell

cannot show a reasonable probability he would have received a more favorable

sentence absent any alleged error. See Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553 (“[S]entencing at the

bottom of the range is the norm for many judges, so it is insufficient, without more,

to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the court would have imposed a lesser

sentence.”).

-4-
The sentence also is substantively reasonable. “A district court abuses its

discretion and imposes an unreasonable sentence when it fails to consider a relevant

and significant factor, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or

considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing

those factors.” United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008). The district

court calculated the (unobjected to) Guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a)

factors, and heard arguments. See Becker, 636 F.3d at 408 (no abuse of a discretion

where a district court considered counsel’s arguments, the Guidelines range, and the

§ 3553(a) factors in imposing a consecutive sentence); Rutherford, 599 F.3d at 821

(same). The district court weighed the proper factors and reasonably imposed a

consecutive sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range. See United States v.

Peterson, 869 F.3d 620, 621 (8th Cir. 2017) (“District courts have wide and broad

discretion to order a consecutive sentence to an undischarged sentence.”).

The district court did not err in sentencing Bonnell. 

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

-5-