FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 21 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

V. 

WILLIAM ALLEN COX, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

.No.04-1378 

District of Colorado 

(D.C. No. 03-CR-444-RB) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, HARTZ, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. 

Defendant-Appellant William Allen Cox pled guilty to the charges in a 

three-count federal indictment. Between the indictment and the plea in the 

federal case, he pled guilty to second-degree murder in state court in Colorado. 

In the federal case, he was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 168 months, to 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination 

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34( a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). This case is 

therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not 

binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and 

collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and 

judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and 

conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-1378 Document: 010110593129 Date Filed: 04/21/2005 Page: 1
run consecutively to his sentence on the state charge, which had not yet been 

imposed. Mr. Cox preserved an objection to the consecutive nature of the 

sentence. In United States v. Williams, 46 F.3d 57 (10th Cir. 1995), this Court 

held that it is permissible for a district court to order a sentence to run 

consecutively to a possible future state sentence. There is a split among the 

circuits on this issue, with the Second, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits 

holding such sentences permissible, and the Ninth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits 

taking the opposite view. Compare Salley v. United States, 786 F.2d 546, 547 (2d 

Cir. 1986); United States v. Brown, 920 F .2d 1212, 1216-1 7 ( 5th Cir. 1991 ); 

United States v. Mayotte, 249 F .3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2001 ); and United States v. 

Ballard, 6 F .3 d 1502, 1510 ( 11th Cir. 1993 ), with United States v. Quintero, l 57 

F.3d 1038, 1039-41 (6th Cir. 1998); Romandine v. United States, 206 F.3d 731, 

737-39 (7th Cir. 2000); and United States v. Clayton, 927 F.2d 491, 492-93 (9th 

Cir. 1991). 

In his brief in this Court, Mr. Cox acknowledges that, because of the panel 

ruling in Williams, "he cannot prevail on this issue at the Tenth Circuit panel 

level, but will ask for a hearing en bane in which he will ask the full Tenth 

Circuit to review this issue." He is correct about that. The panel can do nothing 

for him, and will await with interest his petition for rehearing en bane. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-1378 Document: 010110593129 Date Filed: 04/21/2005 Page: 2
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of 

Colorado is therefore AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court, 

Michael W. McConnell 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-1378 Document: 010110593129 Date Filed: 04/21/2005 Page: 3
Appellate Case: 04-1378 Document: 010110593129 Date Filed: 04/21/2005 Page: 4