# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 13 57

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Pi erre W at so n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 20 , 20 16 Fi le d: Decem

be r 8, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MURPHY an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

W he n Pi erre W at so n was se nt en ced fo r ru nn in g away fro m a ha lfwa y h o u s e whe re he was se rv in g fed eral ti m e, se e 18 U.S.C. § 75 1( a), he was al so faci ng fed eral
ch arg es in a se pa rat e cas e ba se d on al le ga ti on s of frau d an d id en ti ty th eft

. The di st ric tco ur t se nt en ced W at so n to a y ear an d a ha lf in pr is on fo r th e es cap e—t he m id dl e of 1
th e un co nt es te d ad vi so ry ran ge un de r th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s— an d

sp eci fie d th at th e se nt en ce “ sh al l ru n co ns ecu ti ve ly t o a ny se nt en ce th at m ay be
im po se d i f [Wats on ] sh ou ld be co nv ic te d i n t he pe nd in g [f rau d] cas e.” Watso n d id

no t ob ject at th e ti m e, y et on ap pe al he arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ha ve au th or it y
to m ak e hi s se nt en ce co ns ecu ti ve t o an ot he r fed eral se nt en ce th at ha d no t y et be en im po se d. 2

As W at so n ack no wled ge s, he fo rfei te d hi s ch al le ng e by no t rai si ng it be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, so he can ob ta in rel ie f on ly if th e co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce was a p l a in

erro r—m ean in g a n e rro r th at is “ cl ear or ob vi ou s un de r cu rren t law”— th at affe ct ed
hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. Uni te d St at es v. Po it ra, 64 8 F.3 d 88 4, 88 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); se e al s o F ed

. R. Cri m

. P. 52 (b ). W at so n co nc ed es ne it he r th e Su pr em e Co ur t no r th is

co ur t ha s pr ev io us ly res ol ve d th e is su e pr es en te d in th is cas e. He arg ue s th e an swe r is no ne th el es s cl ear ba se d on di ct um fro m th e Su pr em e Co ur t an d de ci si on s fro m
ot he r Co ur ts of Ap pe al s. We are n ot co nv in ced

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t d ic tu m co m es fro m a fo ot no te in Set se r v. Un it ed Sta te s,

c on cern in g th e si m il ar, bu t di st in ct is su e of whe th er a di st ric t co ur t c o u l d mak e a fed eral se nt en ce ru n co ns ecu ti ve ly to an an ti ci pa te d st at e se nt en ce. See Set se r v. Uni te d St at es ,

__

_ U.S.

__ _,

__ _, 13 2 S. Ct

. 14 63
, 14 66 (2 01 2)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at be cau se th e st at ut e go ve rn in g co nc ur ren t a n d co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces , 18 U.S.C. § 35 84 (a), do es no t ad dr es s cas es whe re th e ot he r se nt en ce ha s no t y et be en im po se d, di st r i c t c ou rts ret ai n th ei r co m m on -la w “ di sc ret io n to se le ct whe th er th e 3

The Hon or ab le Cat he rin e D. Perr y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Judg e fo r the E aste rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

W e h av e juri sd ic ti on of t he ap pe al un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1. 2

The rel ev an t s ta tu to ry

lan gu ag e is : 3

-2

-se nt en ces th ey im po se wil l run co nc ur ren tl y or co ns ecu ti ve ly wit h resp ect to [s uc h]

se nt en ces .” Id . a t

_

_ _ , 1 3 2 S

. C t . a t 14 68 -6 9 (“ Sect io n 35 84

. . . i s fram ed no t as a

co nf erra l of au th or it y ”—i n whi ch c a s e t h e fai lu re to m en ti on th is si tu at io n wou ld

m ean no au th or it y was co nf erre d— “ bu t as a li m it at io n of au th or it y th at al read y

ex is ts .”). The fo ot no te in qu es ti on was pr o mp t e d by th e de fen da nt rai si ng th e
pr os pe ct th at su ch reas on in g wou ld al so se em to ex te nd to cas es li ke th is on e, whe re th e an ti ci pa te d se nt en ce was fed eral (wh ic h he ap pa ren tl y as su m ed th e Co ur t wou ld

co ns id er pr ob le m at ic ), be cau se “ th e te xt of § 35 84 (a) do es no t di st in gu is h be twee n
st at e an d fed eral se nt en ces .” Id

. at

__ _ n.4
, 13 2 S. Ct

. at 14 71 n.4

. As a co un te rp oi nt , th e Co ur t o f

f ered a pl au si bl e in te rp ret at io n of th e st at ut e th at wou ld in fact su pp or t

su ch a di st in ct io n:

It c o u l d b e arg ue d th at § 35 84 (a) im pl ie dl y pr oh ib it s [a fed eral co ur t

m ak in g a se nt en ce co ns ecu ti ve t o a n an ti ci pa te d fed eral se nt en ce] be cau se it gi ve s t h a t de ci si on to th e fed eral co ur t th at se nt en ces th e de fen da nt whe n th e ot he r se nt en ce is “ al read y ” im po se d— an d do es no t sp eak (o f co ur se ) to wha t a st at e co ur t m us t do whe n a s e n t e nc e ha s al read y be en im po se d.

Id

.

If m

u l t i p l e te rm s of im

pr is on m en t are im

po se d on a de fen da nt at th e

sa me ti me , or if a te rm of im pr is on m en t is im

po se d on a de fen da nt wh o is al re ad y su bj ect to an un di sc ha rg ed ter m of imp ri so nme nt , th e te rm s

m ay ru n co nc ur ren tl y or co ns ecu t i v el y , ex cep t th at th e te rm s m ay no t

ru n co ns ecu ti ve ly f

o r an at te m

pt an d fo r an ot he r of

fen se th at was th e

so le ob jecti ve of th e at te m

pt

. Mu lt ip le te rm s of im

pr is on m en t im

po se d
at th e sa m e ti m e ru n c on cu rren tl y un le ss th e co ur t o rd ers or th e st at ut e

m an da te s th at th e te rm s are to ru n c o n s e c u t iv el y

. Mu lt ip le te rm s of im pr is on m en t im

po se d at di ffer en t ti mes ru n co ns ecu ti ve ly un le ss th e

co ur t o rd ers th at th e te rm s ar e to run co nc ur ren tl y

.

18 U.S.C. § 3 58 4( a) (e m

ph as is ad de d)

.
-3

-Tha t is th e read in g W at so n no w i n v ok es to jus ti fy reac hi ng th e op po si te

ou tc om e he re th an in Set se r. Bu t th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s su gg es ti on th at dr awin g su ch
a li ne co ul d b e te xt ua ll y de fen si bl e, by i ts el f, is no t ne arl y en ou gh to sa ti sf y us it is
cl ear an d ob vi ou sl y rig ht

. To th e co nt rary, th e fo ot no te was th e Co ur t ’s
de m on st rat io n why it un de rs to od it s de ci si on in Set se r was no t di ct at in g a cl ear

an swe r to th e qu es ti on pr es en te d in W at so n’s s it ua ti on . S ee id . ( “ It su ffi ces to sa y , ho wev er, th at th is qu es ti on [o f an an ti ci p a t e d fed eral se nt en ce] is no t be fo re us .”).
Nor can we sa y , reg ard le ss of wha t th e Co ur t m ean t to le av e op en , th e pr op os ed
in te rp ret at io n is so co m

pe ll in g th at , no w whe n th e is su e ha s be en art ic ul at ed
, read in g § 35 84 (a) an y ot he r way wou ld be cl earl y wro ng

. W at so n’s th eo ry is pr em is ed on th e id ea th at § 3584 (a ) “ giv es” th e co nc ur ren t-o r-co ns ecu ti ve de ci si on to th e se co nd co ur t

to se nt en ce a de fen da nt , se e Set s e r ,

__ _ U.S. at

__

_ n.4
, 13 2 S. Ct

. at 14 71 n.4
, ho wev er, th at is no t th e on ly way to read th e r e l e v a n t cl au se

. Rat he r, it reas on ab ly

co ul d be un de rs to od as si m pl y cl ari fy in g bo th co nc ur ren t an d co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces

are pe rm is si bl e, wit ho ut sp eak in g to whi ch co ur t get s to ch oo se be twee n th em

. See
18 U.S.C. § 35 84 (a) (“ if a te rm of i mp r i s o n men t is im po se d on a de fen da nt who is
al read y su bjec t to an un di sc ha rg ed te rm of im pr is o n men t , th e te rm s m ay ru n

co nc ur ren tl y

or c on se cu ti ve ly”).

The ot he r ap pe ll at e de ci si on s W at so n ci te s ar e U nit ed St at es v. A lm ont e- Reyes,
81 4 F.3 d 24 (1 st Ci r. 20 16 ), Uni te d St at es v. Obe y , 79 0 F.3 d 54 5 (4 th Ci r. 20 15 ), an d
Uni te d St at es v. Mo nt es -Ru iz
, 74 5 F.3 d 12 86 (9 th Ci r. 20 14 ). All t h r e e u lt im at el y ad op te d th e po si ti on pr op os ed in th e Set se r fo ot no te

. See Alm on te -Reyes, 81 4 F.3 d 4

Ano th er co ur t reac he d th e sa m e res ul t

— a l l owi ng fed eral di st ric t co ur ts to 4

m ak e se nt en ces co nc ur ren t or co ns ecu ti ve to an ti ci pa te d st at e se nt en ces bu t n o t t o fed eral on es —i n a cas e de ci de d be fo re Set se r. See Uni te d St at es v. Qui nt an a-Go m ez, 52 1 F.3 d 49 5, 49 7- 98 (5 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Bec au se th e reas on in g in th at de ci si on di ffer ed fro m wha t th e Su pr em e Co ur t la te r ad op te d, se e Set se r,

__ _ U.S. a t

__

_, 13 2 S

. C t

. at 14 68 -7 2; Qui nt an a-Go m ez, 52 1 F.3 d at 49 7- 98
, it rev eal s ev en le ss th an th e po st

Set se r cas es ab ou t t he cu rren t cl ari ty of th e la w for ou r ci rcu it

.
-4

-at 28 -2 9; Obe y , 79 0 F.3 d at 54 9; Mo nt es -Ru iz
, 74 5 F.3 d at 12 92 -9 3. Non e, ho wev er,

tre at ed it as ob vi ou s. In st ead
, th ey al l sa w fit to of fer su bs ta nt iv e an al y se s of th e is su e be fo re reac hi ng th ei r co nc lu si on s. See Alm on te -Reyes, 81 4 F.3 d at 27 -2 9; Obe y , 79 0
F.3 d at 54 8- 50 ; Mo nt es -Ru iz
, 74 5 F.3 d at 12 90 -9 3; se e al so Obe y , 79 0 F.3 d at 54 9- 50 (d eci di ng th e is su e bu t th en de nyin g rel ie f on pl ai n- erro r rev ie w); cf. Alm on te -Reyes,
81 4 F.3 d at 27 n.4 (d ecl in in g to ap pl y th e pl ai n- erro r st an da rd b ecau se th e
go ve rn m en t d id no t as k fo r it ). Two d eci si on s b as ed th ei r ho ld in gs in la rg e p art on ci rcu it pr eced en t th at ha d pr oh ib it ed m ak in g a se nt en ce co nc ur ren t or co ns ecu ti ve to

an y se nt en ce tha t had no t y et be en im po se d, sta te or fed eral

. See Obey, 79 0 F.3d at
54 9 (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 47 2 F.3 d 22 2, 22 4, 22 6 (4 th Ci r. 20 06 )); Mo nt es

Ru iz
, 74 5 F.3 d at 12 90
, 12 92 -9 3 (ci ti ng Tay lo r v. Sawy er, 28 4 F.3 d 11 43
, 11 48 (9 th
Ci r. 20 02 )). Tho se pr io r de ci si on s, th e co ur ts ru le d, were on ly pa rtl y ov erru le d by
Se t s e r a n d rem ai ne d go od la w wit h res pe ct to an ti ci pa te d fed eral se nt en ces

. See
Obe y , 79 0 F .3d at 5 49 ; M on te s- Ru iz , 74 5 F .3d at 1 29 2- 93

.

W e ha ve no co m

pa rab le pr eced en t. Our cl os es t cas e, al th ou gh no t co nt ro ll in g,
at fir st gl an ce po in ts th e op po si te di rect io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Mayott e, 24 9 F.3 d
79 7, 79 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (h ol di ng th e di st ric t co ur t ha d au th or it y to m ak e a se nt en ce

co ns ecu ti ve to an an ti ci pa te d st at e se nt en ce an d, on it s face
, gi vi ng no reas on to th in k

a di ffer en t ru le wou ld ap pl y fo r fed eral s e n t e n c e s )

. W e are no t so th or ou gh ly

pe rs ua de d by th e de ci si on s o f o u r s i s te r ci rcu it s th at we co ns id er th e po in t se tt le d
be y on d de ba te

. Lik e th em , we th in k Set se r l eft op en th e qu es ti on of whe th er th e 5

F o r o ne th in g, whi le it is cert ai nl y tru e th at “ ‘w he n it co m es to se nt en c i n g , 5 la te r is al way s be tt er be cau se th e de ci si on m ak er ha s m or e in fo rm at io n,’” as th e m os t

rece nt cas e em

ph as iz es , se e Alm on te -Reyes, 81 4 F.3 d at 29 (q uo ti ng Set se r,

__ _ U.S.
at

__ _, 13 2 S. Ct . a t 14 71 ), it is no t ob vi ou s why t ha t is no t jus t a co ns id erat io n fo r t he di st ric t co ur t whe n de ci di ng whe th er to m ak e a co nc ur ren t-o r-co ns ecu t i v e de te rm in at io n wit h res pe ct to an an ti ci pa te d s en te nc e, rat he r th an a jus ti fic at io n fo r ta ki ng away th e fir st co ur t’s di sc ret io n en ti rel y

. See Set se r,

__ _ U

. S

. a t

__

_ n.6
, 13 2 S. Ct

. at 14 72 n

. 6 ( “ Of co ur se , a di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ex erci se th e po wer to

-5

-di st ric t co ur t co ul d m ak e W at so n’s pr is on te rm fo r th e es cap e co ns ecu ti ve to an y

se nt e nc e ari si ng fro m th e ot he r fed eral ch arg es pe nd in g ag ai ns t hi m

. Bec au se th at

m ean s an y erro r in th is cas e is no t pl ai n, we affi rm

. W e le av e res ol ut io n of th e is su e fo r a cas e in whi ch it is pro pe rly rais ed an d p res erv ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

im po se an ti ci pa to ry c o ns ecu ti ve (o r co nc ur ren t) se nt en ces in te ll ig en tl y

. In so m e si tu at io ns , a di st ric t cou rt m ay ha ve in ad eq ua te in fo rm at io n and m ay fo rb ear, bu t in
ot he r si tu at io ns , th at wil l no t be th e cas e.”). Im po rta nt ly, th e rel at ed co nc ern th at th e fir st co ur t will be un ab le to weig h th e se nt en ci ng fact or s un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) wit ho ut kn owi ng fo r su re wha t el se th e de fen da nt m ig ht be co nv ic te d of or wha t th e

se co nd se nt en ce m ig ht be
, se e Sm it h, 47 2 F.3 d at 22 7, ci te d in Obe y , 79 0 F.3 d at 54 9,

an d Mo nt es -Ru iz
, 74 5 F.3 d at 12 92 -9 3, cl os el y res em bl es an arg um en t th e Su pr em e Co ur t ad dr es se d an d reject ed in Set s e r

. See Set se r,

__ _ U.S. at

__

_, 13 2 S. Ct

. at 14 70 (“One can no t be su re th at th e se nt en ce im po se d is ‘suf

fic ie nt , bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry ,’ § 35 53 (a), th e arg um en t go es , if on e do es no t kn ow ho w lo ng it wil l
act ua ll y be

. Bu t th e di st ric t jud ge face s th e sa m e un cert ai nt y if th e co nc ur ren t-v s.-

co ns ecu ti ve de ci si on is le ft for la te r res ol ut io n .

. . ; he do es no t kn ow, for exam pl e, whe th er th e 5- y ear se nt en ce he im po se s wil l be an act ua l fiv e y ears or wil l be si m pl y

swa ll owe d wi th in an ot he r se nt en ce.”)

.
-6

-