The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2192
United States of America, * On Appeal from the United

Appellee, States District Court * v. * * Christopher Jerome Moore, [To Be Published.] * *

___________ Filed: November 24, 1998

___________

___________ PER CURIAM.
ter Christopher Moore pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 1 U.S.C. § 2113(a), t

he District Court 1 impriso and three years supervised release. The term of imprisonment wa s ence Moore is serving for forgery. Counsel has led a brief pursuant to Anders v. California a challenge to the sentence imposed. We affirm.In July e

forgery onviction; he served part of the sentence, and was released on probation i n

5. In August 1997, Moore committed the instant offense, and after his arr for federal bank robbery in December 1997, Moore’s state probation wa s tence. In the Anders counsel argues that the District Court erroneously ordered Moore’s federa l ate sentence, and seeks to have the sentences run concurrently.
a District Court sentences a defendant who--like Moore--is subject to an undischarged priso n

United States v. Marsanico , 61 F.3d 666, 668 (8th Cir. is w . Section 5G1.3(a) requires consecutive sentences when the instant offense wa s ittedwhile the defendant was serving a term of imprisonment, or before th defendant began serving a term; section 5G1.3(b) applies when subsect ion (a) does not, urrent sentences if the “undischarged term of imprisonment resulted from offense(s) that have been fully taken into account” in determining for the instant offense; and under section 5G1.3(c)--which ap plies in “any other case”-- sentence may be imposed to run concurrently or consecutively “to achieve reasonable punishment.” Under applicable commentary,
If e defendant was on federal or state probation . . . at the time of th e such probation . . . revoked, the sentence for the ant offense should be imposed to run consecutively to the ter m sed for the violation of probation . . . in order to provide a incremental penalty for the violation of probation . . . .-3-

U.S. Sente ncing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3, comment. (n.6). We conclude th e District Court’s sentence was consistent with subsection (c) and Application Note 6. Cf. United States v. Lange , 146 F.3d 555, 556 (8th Cir. 1998) (affirmin g district court’s imposition of

consecutive sentence under § 5G1.3 (c); although prior state conviction was taken into account in calculation of criminal history points, events underlying state convi ction were not taken into account as relevant conduct and did not affect offense level); United States v. Hornsby , 88 F.3d 336, 339-40 (5th Cir. 1996) (where defendant committed instant offen se while on state parole and parole was revoked, district court did not err by ordering sentence for instant offense to run consecutively pursuant t o § 5G1.3(c) as application note 6 squ arely addressed situation). We thus conclude that the District Court did not err. Upon review of the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.