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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 20 94

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.
Ty vi on W an y e Ben 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 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 9 , 20 18 Fi le d: May 1, 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Ty vi on W an y e Ben so n p l e d gu il ty to co ns pi racy to vi ol at e 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ) ( f

e l o n i n p os se ss io n of a fir earm ), in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 37 1. The di st ric t c o u r t se nt en ced hi m to 54 m on th s’ i m pr is on m en t to ru n co ns ecu ti ve ly t o a 1

The Hon or ab le Ann D. Mo nt go m ery, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t he 1 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.rel at ed
, un di sc ha rg ed st at e se nt en ce. Ben so n ap pe al s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28

U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

At th e ti m e of

sen te nc in g, Be ns on was s erv in g a 60 -m on th st at e se nt en ce fo r
po ss es si ng a fir earm

. The st at e co nv ic ti on aro se fro m th e sa m e co nd uc t as th e fed eral of fen se

. In th e pl ea fo r th e fed e ral of fen se , th e pa rti es ag reed to reco m m en d th e
st at ut or y m ax im

um of 60 m on th s. The y al so reco gn iz ed th at th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld de ci de whet he r to cred it Ben so n fo r ti m e se rv ed for hi s re la te d s ta te sen te nc e.

In hi s se nt en ci ng m em or an du m , Ben so n req ue st ed th at hi s fed eral se nt en ce ru n

co nc ur ren tl y

wit h t he rem ai nd er o f hi s un di sc ha rg ed st at e se nt en ce. At s en te nc in g, he di d no t ren ew th is req ue st

. Howev er, he di d req ue st cred it fo r ti m e se rv ed fo r hi s
st at e se nt en ce. T he di st ric t cou rt gav e hi m pa rti al cred it fo r ti m e se rv ed (6 m on th s)

. It se nt en ced hi m to 54 m on th s to ru n co ns ecu ti ve ly to th e un di sc ha rg ed po rti on of hi s
st at e se nt en ce (1 9 m on th s) . Ben so n d id no t o bjec t. He n ow ap pe al s.

Ben so n be li ev es hi s fed era l s en te nc e sh ou ld ru n co nc ur ren tl y to hi s

un di sc ha rg ed st at e se nt en ce. Thi s co ur t rev ie ws “ a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to im po se

a co ns ecu ti ve or co nc ur ren t se nt en ce fo r r e a s on ab le ne ss .” Unit ed St at es v. McDo na ld , 52 1 F .3d 97 5, 9 80 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

. 2

The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th is co ur t sh ou ld rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r b e c a u se 2 Ben so n di d no t ob

ject to th e co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce at se nt en ci ng

. In Uni te d St at es v. Poe , th is co ur t ap pl ie d pl ai n e r r or rev ie w be cau se th e de fen da nt “ di d no t rai se th is is su e be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t at se nt en ci ng .” Poe , 76 4 F.3 d 91 4, 91 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. S

e e U n i t e d S ta te s v. Ri

st in e , 3 35 F.3 d 69 2, 69 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ap pl y in g pl ai n erro r rev i ew whe re de fen da nt di d no t “ ob ject at se nt en ci ng ”) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Bu t, in Uni te d St at es v Na ra n j o , th is co ur t ap pl ie d pl ai n erro r
rev i e w b ecau se th e de fen da nt fai le d to rai se th e is su e “ ei th er in th e se nt en ci ng

m em or an da or at se nt en ci ng .” Nar an jo
, 45 9 Fed

. App x. 57 9, 5 8 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Here, th e is su e is fu rth er co m pl ic at ed by th e fac t t h a t Ben so n di d no t ob ject to a
co ns ecu ti ve se nt e n ce in hi s se nt en ci ng m em or an du m

. Rat he r, he on ly req ue st ed a

-2

-A d is tri ct co ur t m ay or de r a fed eral se nt en ce co ns ecu ti ve to an un di sc ha rg ed

st at e se n t e n c e

. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 84 (a ) (“ [I]f a te rm of im pr is on m en 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 on m en t, th e te rm s

m ay ru n co nc ur ren tl y or co ns ecu ti ve ly.”). Se e Set se r v. Unit

ed St at es , 56 6 U.S. 23 1,
24 4 (2 01 2) (h ol di ng se ct io n 35 84 ap pl ie s to st at e se nt en ces ). If un sp eci fie d,

“ [m ]ult ip le te rm s of im

pr is on m en t im

po se d at di ffer en t ti m es ru n co ns ecu ti ve ly.” 18
U.S.C. § 35 84 (a )

. In de te rm in in g whe th e r se nt en ces ru n co nc ur ren tl y or

c o n s e c u t iv el y , di st ric t co ur t “ sh al l co ns id er

. . . th e fact or s se t fo rth in se ct io n 35 53 (a).” 18 U.S.C. § 35 84 (b)

.

B e n s o n be li ev es th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact o r s i n im po si ng a co ns e c u ti ve se nt en ce. Thi s be li ef ha s no m eri t. The di st ric t co ur t sa id :

“ Thi s se nt en ce of 5 4 m on th s, whi ch wil l be co ns ecu ti ve to th e st at e se nt en ce, I do fin d to co m

pl y wit h st at ut or y ob

jecti ve s. I th in k it ’s su ffi ci en t bu t no t m or e th an

ne ces sa ry to acco m

pl is h th e ob

jecti ve s of j us ti ce.” It th us co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s and ex pl ai ne d th at a co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce was ne ces sa ry “ to acco m pl is h th e ob jecti ve s of jus ti ce.” Se e McDo na ld
, 52 1 F.3 d at 98 0 (h ol di ng th e di st ric t co ur t was

“ well wit hi n it s br oa d di sc ret io n” in or de rin g co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces whe re th e di st ric t

co ur t s a i d t h e se nt en ce was ap pr op ria te “ un de r th e ad vi so ry [G]uid el in es ” an d it

“ co ns id ered all th e o th er s ta tu to ry fact or s” ).

Ben so n arg ue s th e co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce vi ol at es U.S.S.G. § 5G 1. 3( b)(2 ) whi ch

sa y s th at whe n “ a te rm of im pr is on m en t res ul te d fro m an ot he r of fen se th at is rel ev an t

co nd uc t to th e in st an t of

fen se of co nv ic ti o n

. . . th e se nt en ce fo r th e in st an t of fen se sh al l

. . . ru n co nc ur ren tl y to th e rem ai nd er of th e un di sc ha rg ed te rm of

co nc ur ren t s en te nc e. Thi s co ur t n eed no t d eci de th e is su e h ere.

-3

-im

pr is on m en t.” U.S.S.G. § 5G 1.3 (b)( 2)

. Bu t th e gu id el in es are ad vi so ry , an d se ct io n 5G1 .3(b )(2 ) do es no t pr oh ib it th e di st ric t co ur t fro m ex erci si ng it s st at ut or y au th or it y
to im po se a co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce. Unit ed St at es v. Ma rt

i n e z Ro dr ig uez , 50 8 Fed

. Ap p x

. 5 7 3
, 5 7 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (“ Sect io n 5G1 .3(b )

. . . is m erel y ad vi so ry , an d th e di st ric t co ur t ret ai ns st at ut or y au th or it y to im po se a pa rti al ly co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce.”)
, ci ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 35 84 ; Unit ed St at es v. Lone Fi

gh t , 62 5 F.3 d 52 3, 52 5- 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ Eve n if the gu id el in es do no t re co m m en d t ha t s en te nc es run co ns ecu ti ve ly, th e di st ric t co ur t ha s br oa d st at ut or y au th or it y , pu rs ua n t t o 18 U.S.C. § 35 84
, to im po se co ns ecu ti ve ter m s.”)

.

Fo r th e fir st ti m e in hi s rep ly, Ben so n arg ue s th e se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

. Thi s arg um en t is waiv ed

. Je nk in s v. Wi nt er , 54 0 F.3 d 74 2, 75 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ Thi s co ur t do es no t co ns id er is su es rai se d fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al in

a rep ly br ie f un le ss th e ap pe ll an t gi ve s so m e reas on fo r fai li ng to rai se an d bri ef the is su e in hi s o pe ni ng bri ef.”) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to im po se a co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce was reas on ab le

.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-4

-