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), the District Court1

impriso and three years supervised release. The term of imprisonment was

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 in

5. In August 1997, Moore committed the instant offense, and after his

arr for federal bank robbery in December 1997, Moore’s state probation was

tence. In the Anders

 counsel argues that the District Court erroneously ordered Moore’s federal

ate sentence, and seeks to have the

sentences run concurrently.

 a District

Court sentences a defendant who--like Moore--is subject to an undischarged prison

United States v. Marsanico, 61 F.3d 666, 668 (8th Cir. 

is w .

Section 5G1.3(a) requires consecutive sentences when the instant offense was

itted while the defendant was serving a term of imprisonment, or before th

defendant began serving a term; section 5G1.3(b) applies when subsection (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 applies 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 the

such probation . . . revoked, the sentence for

the ant offense should be imposed to run consecutively to the term

sed for the violation of probation . . . in order to provide a

incremental penalty for the violation of probation . . . .
-3-

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3, comment. (n.6). We conclude the

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) (affirming 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

conviction 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 offense while on state parole and parole was revoked, district court

did not err by ordering sentence for instant offense to run consecutively pursuant to

§ 5G1.3(c) as application note 6 squarely 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.