## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1772 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. A LA N J. M C N EIL, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07- CR-236

—J. P. S tadtmuel ler , Judge .
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 10, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 21, 2009

Befo re C UDAH Y, W ILLIAM S an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges . C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e . Alan M cN eil w as ar re ste d fo r b ei ng a fel on- i n-pos ses si on o fa fi re ar m wh i l e he w as on p ar ole from th re e s ta te c o n v i c tio n s. H is s ta te p ar ole was r ev o k ed due t o the fel o n- i n- po ss es si o n c ha r g e an d he receiv e d t h ree new state sen ten ces. Th e d istri ct cou rt th eni m po se d a n 8 4- m ont h se nt en ce f o r the fel o n- i npo ss es si o n c ha r g e, t o r un c o nc ur r en t wi th t wo o ftho se stat e se nt en ce s. I t i s i m po ss ibl e to t el l fr o m the r ec o rd w hetherthe t hi r d sta te sente nce had bee n dis charg ed2 N o. 08

- 1772

w h en th e fe d er al s en te n c e w as im p os ed . B ec au se M c N eil and the g ove rnm ent a gr eed to a re com m endati on that M cNei l woul d r ec ei ve c o nc ur r ent t i m e wi th any sta te sente nce he w as ser vi ng, the dist ric t c ourter re d by no t d e t e r mi ni n gth e s t a t u s o fth e th i r d s t a t e s e n t e n c e . We th erefo re rem an d M cN eil ’s sente nc e for th e d istri ct cou rt to supp l em ent the r eco rd r ega rdi ng the st atus ofthat th ird se n te n c e a n d to d et er m in e w h et h er M c N eil sh ou ld be r ese ntenced i n l i ght o fi t. M cN ei l was ar re st ed o n J uly18 , 20 07 w hen M i l w aukee po li ce offi ce r s ex ec ut ed a na r co ti cs s ea r chwar r an t atthe ho m e o fM cNei l ’s girl fr i en d. Tha t ni g htM cNei l t o l d the o ffi ce r s th athe ha d hi ddena pi st o l i n a he at i ngve nta t th e hom e. A fter obtaining a secon d searc h w arran t, th e officers fou n d th e g u n w h er e M c N eil to ld th em it w ou ld be . In Decem ber20 07, M cN ei l pl eaded gui lty to o ne co unt of fel on-in-p ossess ion, in viol ation of 18 U
. S. C
. §§ 922 (g), 924(a)(2). Foll ow ing h is plea, on Janu ary 24, 2008 , M cN eil ’s paro l e was r evo ked o n one ofhis p rior st ate co nvi cti ons, Case N o. 04-C F- 1846 , and he r ecei ved an a dd i ti onal sta te sente nce o fthr ee m onths and on e day ( here i nafter th e “2 00 4 se nt en ce , ” so ca l l ed be ca us e M cNei l was c o nvi cted and r ecei ved the or i gi nal sente nce f or th is offense i n 200 4)
. Roughl y tw o w eek s l ate r, o n Februar y 5 , 20 08, M cN ei l’s p arol e was r evo ked o n the othe r tw o sta te co nv i ct i o ns , Ca se Nos
. 0 1- CF- 83 3 an d 0 1- CF- 26 51 , a nd he r ec ei ve d a ddi ti o na l s en te nc es o ft wo y ears, fi ve months and f o urda y s f o r e ac h ( he r eina fte r the “ 20 01 s en te nc es”)
. Bey o nd the se b i ts o fi nform at i o n, g l ea ne d fr o m theN o. 08

- 1772 3 P re se n te n c e In ve st iga tio n R ep or t (P SR ), th e re c or d is sil en t in cruc ialresp ects
. In p articu lar, the record do e s n o te s t ab l i s h whe the rthe 2 0 0 4 s e nt e nc e h a d a l r e a dy been disc harg ed on the date ofM cN ei l ’ s federa lse ntenci ng, M ar ch 7, 20 08. Thi s m att er s be cause i t a pp ea rs that th e di st r i ctc o ur t would h ave o r der ed th e fede r als en te nc e to r un c o nc ur r en t wi th any st at e sen te n c e M c N eil w as ser v i ng . I fthe 2 0 0 4 s e nt e nc e h a d a l r e a dyb e e n di sch ar g ed, the n the c o urt w as co r r ec t to o r derthe federa l se n tence concur re nt with onl y the 20 01 sente nces; the c ourtcannoto rdera sente nce t o run concurre nt with a n u llity , see 18 U. S
. C. § 3 58 4( a) ; U. S
. S
. G. § 5 G1. 3( c)
. But i f th e 2 0 0 4 s e n t e n c e h a d n o t been disch arged , i t ap p ears fro m th e circ u m st an c es th at th e d ist ric t c o u r t w ou ld p r o per l y ha ve o r der ed th e fede r als en te nc e to r un c o ncur r en t wi tha l l thr ee s ta te s en te nc es . I t was i nc um be nt on the di str i ct c ourtto fi gure thi s o ut. U nfortu na tely, this issue w as no t ad d ressed at M cN eil ’s fede ral sen ten cing h earing. Ins tead , M cN eilurged m ore gener al l y in hi s s entencing m em or an d u m , a nd the gov ernm en t agr ee d, tha t “the Co ur t sh o ul d i m po se a s en te nc e to r un c o nc ur r en t to the s en tence i m po se d b y the State ofW i sco nsi n re sul ti ng fro m M cN ei l ’ s pos ses si on ofthe fi re ar m char ged i n thi s case. ” At sente nci ng, M cNei l ’ s at to r ne y r ei te r at ed th at, “ [ i ] n the m em o r an dum Ihad al so as ke d t he Courti n f ashi oni ng a sente nce t o co ns i derg i vingM r . M cNei l c o nc ur r en t tim e forthe revoca tion tim e tha t he’s facing.” Th e govern m e n t’s at to r ne y j o i ne d the r ec o m m end ati o n f o r c o nc ur r en t ti m e, not i ng tha t a l though s uch a posi ti on w as unu sual f o r the g o v e r nme nt, i tr e fl e c t e d the n e e d t o p r o v i de4 N o. 08

- 1772 M cN ei l with a n i ncenti ve to ple ad gui l ty and al so re w ard ed hi m f o r c o o per at i ngwi thl aw e nf o r ce m en t an d f orpl eadi ng guil ty ear l y in the case

. M cN ei l ’ s pl ea agr eem ent m em or i al i zes the parti es’ j oi nt r eco m m endati on th at th e fede r al se nt en ce be o r der ed co nc ur r en t w ith a ny st at e se nt en ce r es ul ti ngfr o m M cNei l ’ s g un po ss es si o n, and the PS R al so sta tes thatthe gov er nm ent “a gr ees to re com m end the s entence be concurr ent t o any se n tence i m po se d b y the S tate o fW i sc o ns i n r es ul tingfr o m the d efe n d an t’s p os se ss i o n o f th e fire ar m ch ar ge d in t h is c as e.” (E m p h as is s u p p lied .) The di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha t M cNei l ’ s g ui del i ne s se ntenci ng r an ge w as 110 to 137 m onths, but that i t was c ap p ed at12 0 m on th s b y t h e t en -ye ar s t a t u to ry m ax imum. 1 8 U. S
. C. § § 922( g) , 9 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 )
. McNe i l r e qu e s t e d a re du ced se ntence of80 m onths to re flec t h i s a cceptance o fr es po ns ibi l i tya nd hi s co o per at ion w i thpo l i ce . The g o ve r nm en t’ s at to r ne y a l so no te d tha t 11 0 m o nths , the gui del i nes m i ni m um , i s “ a l ot oftim e . . . a goo d chunk of ti m e, ” without m akin g a ny m or e s peci fi c r equest re gar ding the l ength ofthe sente nce. The co urt i m posed a s e n t e n c e o f8 4 mo n th s , t o r u n c o n c u r r en t wi th t h e t wo 2001 se nt e nc e s , b utdi d n o tme nt i o n the 2 0 0 4 s e nt e nc e. M c N eil’s as sis ta n t f e d er al d efe n d er d id n otm en tio n it ei ther, m uch l ess did she add re ss w hether i t h ad been di s c ha r g e d. I n or deri ng the federa l se ntence to run co ncurr ent with only th e 2001 sen ten ces, it ap p ears th at th e d istric t c o u rt re l i ed on the PSR, wh i ch st ate d that M cN ei l w as on su per v i s e d r e l e a s e f o r o n l y th e 2 0 0 1 s e n t e n c e s a ttheN o. 08

- 1772 5

T h i s s e c t i o n o fth e P S R a l s o n o t e s th a t, p u r s u a n tt o U. S
. S
. G. 1 § 5G 1.3, Ap p lication N ote 3(C), i f the d efend an t w as on p aro le at the tim e of the insta nt o ffen se, an d ha d ha d tha t pa ro le rev ok ed , “it is re com m en d ed th e sente nc e for the instan t offen se be i m pos ed to r un cons ec utively t o the t er m i m pos ed for the revocati on. ” ( Em phasis s up plie d.) The PSR acc uratel y paraphr a ses the guid el ines app li cat ion note
. O fcours e, the guidel i ne s ar e advi s or y on l y , and th e par t i es ag re ed t o r ec om m en d concurrent, rather than consec utive, tim e. The d is tr ic t c ourt the r e f ore wa s wi thi n i t s di s c r e t i oni n de c l i ni ngt o a do pt thi s as pec tofthe r ec om m en dat i on. tim e o f h is a rre st for th e fe lon -in -p os se ss i o n c h ar ge . In p articu lar, the P SRnotes that “[t] he de fend an t’s su p ervi si on in Case Nos. 01 C F83 3 a nd 01 CF2651 w as re vok ed f ori nvol vem ent in the i nstant offe n se. ” Thi s s ecti on o f th e PS R do es no t m en ti o n the 2 00 4 se nt en ce . In a 1 se p ar at e d oc u m en t in c lu d ed in t h e re c or d on ap p ea l, en titl ed “S entencing Reco m m endati on, ” the sa m e pr obati on o ffi cerwh o prepar ed the PSR r eco m m en ded a 137- m o nth s en te nc e, t o r un c o ns ec ut i ve t o t he 20 01 s en tence s, ag ai n w i th no m enti on o fthe 2004 se ntence. El se wher e, ho wev er, a s we ha ve a l r ea dy d is cus se d, the PS R do es l i stthe 2 00 4 co nv i ct i o n a nd se nt en ce , i n the se ct i o n o n McN ei l ’ s cr i m i na l hi st o r y . Thi s se cti on of the P SR m ak e s c l e a r th at M c N eil w as rele as ed on p ar ole on Octo ber18 , 20 05, and that he was sti l l o n p ar ol e for al l three stat e co nv i ct i o ns whenhe was a r r es te d f o r the felo n -i n - p os se ss ion ch ar ge atiss u e h er e. A ga in, his par o l e was r ev o k ed an d he w as r es en te nc ed f o r the 2004 co nvi ctio n on J anuary24, 20 08, and f orthe 20016 N o. 08

- 1772

N o r d i d M c N e i l ’s a t t o r n e y sp e c i fi c a l l y o b je c tto th e P S R ’s 2 rec om m endation that the fed eral s ente nce be cons ec utive to , rat her tha n c on c ur r e ntwi th, the s t a t e s e nt e nc e s . I ti s c l e a r, h ow ever, thatM cN ei l and the gov ernm ent agreed to an order o f co n cu rren t tim e, w hich the d istrict cou rt ap p ear s to ha ve a do pt e d. Sta te law d oe s no t he lp u s an sw er th ese qu estion s. W iscon sin 3 do es not appear to have a rule d ic tating that s ente nces i ni t i al l y or der ed t o r un c ons ec ut i vel y m us t, upon re voc at i on o f p a ro le an d re se n te n ci n g , al so b e c o n se c u t i v e . SeeSt at e v. C arte r, 208 W is
. 2d 142, 154–55, 560 N
. W
. 2d 256, 261 ( W is
. 1997) ( “W hen a re se ntenci ng is requi red for any reas on, the i nit ial se n t e n c e i s a n u lli ty ; it ce a se s to ex ist .”); se e al so St at e v. 

### (continued...) c on vic tio n s o n Fe b ru ar y 5 , 200 8. T h e P SR d oe s n otsp ec ifical l y a dd re ss w hetherthe 2004 se ntence w as disc harg ed at th e t im e t h e fe d er al s en te n c e w as im p os ed . I t m er ely i mpl i e s a s muc h b y v i r t ue o f i t s r e c o mm e nd a t i on t hat the federa l s en tence be or dered to r un consec uti ve to only th e 2001 se ntences
. M cN ei l ’ s a tto rneydi d not obj ect to thi s o m i ssi on fro m the P SR o r re quest that the probati on o ffi cer s u p p l em ent the r eco rd. H owever, the 2004 2 se nt e nc e c o ul d h a v e b e e n i mpo s e d in a n umb e r o fways . Qu est i ons to ask w ere whether the 2 004 sente nce was or de re d to co m m ence on the date i t was i ssued, o r whethe r, a l th o ug h i t was i ss ue d t wo wee k s p r i o r t o the 2001 se ntences , i t was o rder ed to r u n c on c urr ent with th e 2 00 1 s en te n c es , o r w hetheri t wa s to run consec uti ve to the 2 001 sente nces, and i fso , wh etherthe 2004 sente nce o r the 2001 sente nces w er e t o be di schar ged fi rs t. 3N o. 08

- 1772 7



### (...continued) Th ums , 2 9 5 W i s . 2 d 6 6 4 , 6 7 2 , 7 2 1 N. W
. 2 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 3 ( W i s . Ct
. App
. 20 06 ) (find ing tha t on resen ten cing , “[t] he cou rt m ay . . . rev isit whethe r the c om pani on cha rg es s houl d be c onc ur re nt o r c o n se cu tiv e a s th e c o u rt see s fit” ). N ordoes the re cor d i nd icate wh etherM cN ei l r ecei ved cr edi t f o r the s ta te t i m e he ha d a l r ea dy se r ved b y the d at e o f h is re vo c at ion h ea rin g a n d res en te n c in g in J an ua r y 2 00 8 ( i t appe ar s he was i n s ta te c us to dy fr o m the d at e o f h is a rre st in Ju ly 2 00 7). If M c N eil re c eiv ed cr ed it f orse ven m onths ofst ate custo d y ( fro m the J uly20 07 ar r es t unt i l the J an uar y 2 00 8 st at e se nt en cing ) , the n the 2004 se nten ce

— whi ch, r ec al l, was o nl y f o r thr ee months and one day

— m ay h av e b ee n d isc h ar ge d o n t h e d at e it w as i m posed. I f, however, the 2004 se nt en ce was o r der ed to r un c o ns ec ut i ve t o the 2 00 1 se nt en ce s, he w ou ld n oth av e b eg u n se rv in g t h e 2 00 4 s e n te n c e u n til som eti m e a fterthe federa l se ntenci ng o n M ar ch 7, 20 08. I t i s a l so possibl e that M cN eil b ega n ser vi ng the 20 04 se nt e nc e o n J a nu a r y 2 4 , the da t e i t wa s i mpo s e d, o r on F e b r u a r y 5 , th e d a t e th e n e w 2 0 0 1 s e n t e n c e s w e r e i mpo s e d. In e i the r c a s e , the 2 0 0 4 s e nt e nc e wo ul d not have been disch arged by M arch 7, w h e n th e d istri ct cou rt i m posed the federa l se ntence. A t or al a rgum ent, M cN ei l ’ s a tto rney( w ho di d not h an d le th e c as e in th e d ist ric t c ou rt ) ad m i t te d th at h e d id not know w hetherthe 200 4 s entence had bee n dis

ch arged pr i o r t o the fede r als en te nc i nghe ar i ng . The gov er nm ent’ s a tto rney( al so not the s am e a tto rneyto hand l e the case bel ow) did not know e i ther

. H e a rg ued8 N o. 08

- 1772 onl y that i t was l ogi calto a ssum e th at t h e sentence had be en di s c h a r g e d b a s e d o n th e P S R, a n d u r g e d th a tt he relevan t qu estion w as w he th er the d istri ct cou rt’s re l i ance on the PSR was re asonable

. A s w e hav e already discu ssed , how ever , t he PSR m ake s i t i m po ss ible to te l l f orsur e whether M cN ei l was se r vingthe 2 00 4 sen te nc e atthe t i m e o fhi s fede r als en te nc i ng, a nd the r efo r e i t was unr ea so nabl e f o r the dist ri ct c ourtnotto supplem ent the r eco rd. M or eov er, as note d i n the PSR, M cN ei l ’ s pl ea agr eem ent in c l ud es a j o i ntr e c o mme n d a t i o n th a tth e fe d e r a l s e n t e n c e b e “ c o ncurr ent t o a ny sentenc e im p os ed by t h e S t a t e o f W isc on sin resu lti ng from de fend an t’s poss ession of the fir earm charg ed i n thi s ca se. ” Thi s pro vis i on o fthe ple a a gr eem ent i s bind i ng o n the sente nc in g cour t under Feder al R ule of Crim inal P r o c e d u re 11, an d therefore th e cou rt was r equi r ed to o r derthe fede r als en te nc e co nc ur r en t w i th all u nd i schar ged st ate se ntences o nce i t a ccepted th e p l ea a g r ee m en t. F ed. R. Cr i m . P. 1 1( c) ( 1) ( C) ( “[ T] he pl eaa g r ee m en t m ays pec i fy tha t an at to r ne y f o r the gov er nm ent wil l

. . . ag re e th at a s peci fi c se ntence or se nt en cingr an g e i s th e appr o pr i at e di spo si ti o n o fthe ca se , o r tha t a par ti cul arpr o vi si o n o fthe S en te nc i ng Gu i del i nes, o r pol i cy state m ent, o r sente nci ng f acto r does ordoes notapply( suc h a re com m endati on o r re quest b in ds the cour t o nce the co urt accepts the ple a a gr ee m en t).” ); se e also U nite d State s v. C ole, No
. 0 6

- 2547, sli p o p. a t 7 ( 7th Ci r . J une 3 0, 2 00 9) ( di sc us singc as es)
. I t a l m ostgo es w i thout say i ng tha t, to fulfi l l thi s r equi re m en t, the s en ten cingc o ur t was b o und t o de te r m i ne th e nat ure and nu m ber of all of M cN ei l ’ s undis charg ed st at e se nt en ce s r el at ed to hi s g un po ss es si o n.N o. 08

- 1772 9

W e em phasize “parti cular ” here because, as disc uss ed ab ove, 4 M c N ei l ’ s at t or ne y di d r e q ue s ttha tthe federal s e nt e nc e be or der ed “ t o r un co nc u rr en tt o the s en t en c e i m pos ed by the St at e ofW i s c ons i n r es ul t i ng fro m M c N ei l ’ s p osses s i on ofthe fi re ar m c har ge d i n thi s c as e. ” Th e s en t en c e im p osed by the St at e ofW i s c ons i n h appe ns t o i nc l ude the s en t en c e f or the 2004 o ff en s e; butM c N ei l ’ s at t or ne y di d nots pel l thatoutor o b j e c t t o th e P S R r e c o mm e n da t i o n, wh i c h a dd r e s s e d onl y t he 20 01 sente nc es. N ev erth eless, ev en if M cN eil’ s failu r e to raise this issue m or e p articu larly b efore th e d istrict cou rt sub jects h is c la im to p la in er ro r r ev ie w h er e, U n i te d St a t e s v. Ol a no , 507 U. S
. 7 2 5 , 7 3 2

– 3 6 ( 1 9 9 3 ) , a s di s c us s e d i n f ra , w e fi nd thatthe di s t rict c our tpl ai nl y e rr ed by notor der i ng the pr obat i on of fi c e t o s u p p l e me n t th e r e c o r d t o de t e r mi n e th e s t a t u s oft he 20 04 s en t en c e. M or eo ver, the re wer e othe r as pec t s ofthe prob ati on offic e’ s re port and sent enci ng recom m endation that 

### (continued...) That the PSR f ai l ed to in c l ud e s uffi ci ent info rm ati on for th e d istri ct cou rt to m ake th at d eterm ination is parti cul ar l y frus tr ating g i ven that the W i sco nsi n Departm en t o f C or re c ti on s p os se ss es d oc u m en ts th at w ou ld provi de eas y a nsw er s t o these questi ons. Gather i ng such i nfo rm atio n i s o ne o fthe pri nci pal ta sks o fa proba ti on offi ceri n prepar i ng a PSR. The go ver nm ent’ s a tto rney ackno w l edged thatthe dist ri ct c ou rt sho uld have ord ered the p robation office to sup p lem en t the re c o rd w h en it d et er m in ed t h a t t h e P SR w as n otcle ar on th is p oint. T he govern m e n t ’s attorn ey also argued , how ever, that no o ne br ought thi s pa rticu la r i ssu e to the di str i ct c ou rt ’s a tt en tio n, an d t h e re for e t h at it h ad n otbe en litig a te d, s o th e U. S
. At t o r n e y ’ s o ffi c e d i d n o tc h a s e d o wn th e st at e co nv i ct i o n do cuments
. F ur th er, the g o ve r n- 410 N o. 08

- 1772



### (...continued) sho u ld ha v e p u t the co u rt on no tice tha t they m igh t con tain error s and the ref ore s hould b e re ad clos el y. The se ntence rec om m ended w as 137 m onths, the top end of the guid el ines ran g e an d a full 17 m on ths abo v e the statu tor y m axim u m . T his er ro r was c or re c t ed a tthe s en ten cing hea ri ng. The pr obat i on of fic e al so r ecom m ended a con secuti ve s en t en c e bas ed o n the r e l e va ntg ui de l i ne s a ppl i c a t i onn ot e , U. S
. S
. G. § 5 G1. 3 , Appl i c at i on N ot e 3( C) , e venthoughthe PSR c l ea rl y s t at es thatthe gove rn m en tag re ed t o co n cu rren t ti m e. This disc repancy passe d w itho u t com m en t at the h ear ing , p ossi b l y b eca u se it is sim p ly the pr obat i on offi c e’ s p ol i c y t o r ec om m en d what eve r the g u id eline s re c o m m en d

. Y et this ina ttentio n to d etail sho u ld ha v e flagg ed the n eed to scru tinize the re p or t. m en t’s at to rn ey rais ed a p ra c t i c al d ifficu lty rou tin ely fac ed bythe U
. S. A tto rney ’ s o ffi ce: deter m i ni ng wh er e t o draw the l i ne o n f act- gatherin g fo r i ssues thatm ay ne v e r c o me up . W e rec ogn ize that th ere is a balan cing ac t to be p erf or m ed here

. The gov er nm ent cannot be expecte d to gather eve rypiec e of paperi m aginabl e o n the chance that an i ssue w i l l be l i ti gat ed. W e al so em phas ize w h at i s obvi ous: d efe n se att or neys ar e wis e t o scr uti ni ze PSRs ca re fully befo re se n te n c in g a n d to tim ely r a i se am b igu iti es an d discr e p a n c ies. Bu t w he re, as here, the P SR o mi t s c r uc i a l i nfo r mat i o n, l e a v i ng a mbi g ui t y o n the f ace of that d ocu m en t abou t the na t ure of a d efend an t’s st at e se nt en ce s, a nd the r efore unc er ta i nty abo utho w the fed er al s en te n c e o u gh t t o b e im p os ed , w e fin d t h at it is pl ain e rror not to supp l em ent the r eco rd to r eso l ve that am b i g u ity
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l ano , 50 7 U.S
. 72 5, 73 2–36N o. 08

- 1772 11 ( 19 93 )
. The PS R’ s o m i ss i o n co ul d ha ve affected M cN eil ’s su bsta nt i alr i g ht s ( we c anno t k no w f o r s ur e wi th o ut r ev i ewi ngthe W i sconsi n s en te nc i ngdo cument s)
. I fthe 2004 s e nt e nc e ha d no t b e e n di s c ha r g e d a t the t i m e o f fede r al se nt en cing, th en th e fede r al se nt en ce woul d run co ns ec ut i ve t o the 200 4 st at e se nt en ce , l en g th en i ngthe tot alti m e s er ved by up to thr ee m onths and one day. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 546 F.3d 4 6 5, 472 (7th Cir. 2008 ) ( expla i ni ng tha t i fthe dist ri ct c ourtdoes not sp ecify w he th er sent en ces im p osed at different tim es are to r un c o nc ur r en tly o r c o ns ec ut i ve l y, they wi l l r un c o nsecuti vel y) ( ci ti ng 18 U
. S. C. § 3 584( a) )
. Thi s s tat e o f aff ai r s ce r ta i nl y a ffec ts th e f ai r ne ss a nd i nt eg r i tyo fthe j ud i ci alpro cee d i ngs. W e e xerci se our disc re ti on t o or der a r em and fo r th e c ou rtto deter m i ne wh etherthe 2004 se n te n c e h ad be en d isc h ar ge d

. O l ano , 50 7 U.S
. at73 5–36
. M cNei l a l s o a r g u e s th a ti twa s p l a i n e r r o r f o r the dist ri ct c ourtnotto r educe hi s fed er al sente nce t o re fl ect the s eve n m onths and ninet een days he ha d al re ady spent i n sta te custo dy at the t i m e of his federa l s e nt e nc i ng . McNe i l a r g ue s tha tthe s e nt e nc i ngt r a ns c r i pt m ak es cl earthatthe cour t intended his federa l se ntence to b e “ful l y c o nc ur r en t” wi thhi s st at e se nt en ce s, a nd that the o nl y way f orthe dist ri ct c ourtto i m pose a “fully c oncurr ent” sente nce was to r educe the fed eral se nt en ce b y the a m o unto ft im e a lrea dy se r ve d o n the sta te sente nces. T h e r e a s o n f o r th i s c o n c l u s i o n i s tha t th e dist ri ct c ourtl acks the author i ty to or der the B u re au of Pri sons t o gi ve cre ditf orti m e s er ved befor e the federa l se n te n c e is im p os ed

. U n i t e d S t a tes v. R o ss , 21 9 F
. 3d 592, 594 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)
. M cN ei l co ncedes that his fail ure to r a i s e th i s i s s u e b e l o w s u bj e c t s i tt o p l a i n e r r o r r e v i e w.12 N o. 08

- 1772 Bu twe s e e n o e r r o r h e r e . T he di s t r i c tc o ur t cal c ul a t e d a g ui de l i ne s r a ng e o f1 1 0 to 12 0 m o nths , an d the n o r de r e d a r e du c e d s e nt ence o f8 4 mo nths t o r e fl e c tMcNe i l ’ s a c c e ptance o fr esponsibi l i ty. The di str i ct c ourtwas not required t o r e d u c e th e fe d e r a l s e n t e n c e t o r e fl e c tt i me se rv ed in s ta te cu st od y, n o r d oe s M c N eil ar gu e t h at it w as. Ins tead , he argu es m erely that th e d istri c t cou rt inten ded to o rdera so- cal l ed “fu lly concurr ent” sente nce. Butno th i ngi n the r ec o r d r efl ec ts s ucha n int en t. The di s t r i c t c o u r t j u d g e d i d n o t s a y th a t h e wi sh ed he co ul d g i ve M cNei l cr edi t f o r t i m e se r ve d b uttha t he was unabl e to do s o , no r di d he a tt empt t o o r derthe Bu re au ofPri son s t o gi ve hi m such cr edi t, wh i ch, as w e hav e a l re ady st ate d, he was not author ized to do. N o r di d the j udg e st at e tha t h e wi sh ed to make the s en te n c es “fully c oncurr ent. ” M cN ei l m ake s no sho w i ng o f e r r o r h e r e , mu c h l e s s o fp l a i n e r r o r, a n d the r e f o r e we do not displ ace thi s a spect ofthe sente nce. W e R EV ERSE AND R EMA ND M cNei l ’ s se nt en ce , so th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t m ays uppl ementthe r eco r d t o de te r m i ne the s tatus ofthe 2004 s en te n ce a nd wh etherthe federa l se n te n c e s h ou ld be ord er ed to r u n co n c u rre n t w ith it as w el l as with the 20 01 sente nces.

7- 21- 09