Source: http://openjurist.org/963/f2d/263
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 23:55:52
Document Index: 300541140

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5', '§ 3584', '§ 3584', '§ 3584', '§ 5', '§ 3584']

963 F2d 263 United States v. G Lail | OpenJurist
963 F. 2d 263 - United States v. G Lail	Home963 f2d 263 united states v. g lail
963 F2d 263 United States v. G Lail 963 F.2d 263
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Ernest G. LAIL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 91-10226.
Submitted April 15, 1992.*Decided April 29, 1992.
U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a). While this provision appears to require consecutive terms, the district court retains the discretion to order a concurrent term under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a).1 See United States v. Wills, 881 F.2d 823, 826 (9th Cir.1989).
In United States v. Pedrioli, 931 F.2d 31 (9th Cir.1991) we reasoned that discretion under § 3584(a) should be exercised in harmony with the requirements of the sentencing guidelines. Specifically, we held that when exercising § 3584(a) discretion "district courts must follow the usual departure procedures." 931 F.2d at 32. "The guideline procedures for departure require that the district court specify the ground for its decision on the record, that the court make accurate findings of fact as to that ground, that the ground for departure be based on reasonable factors not considered by the guidelines, and that the extent of the departure be reasonable." 931 F.2d at 32 n. 2.
Under the guidelines Lail should be sentenced to consecutive terms. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a). Although the court has discretion to order concurrent terms under § 3584(a), the decision to do so would constitute a departure from the guidelines and would have to conform with the requirements outlined in Pedrioli. The district court heard the defendant's arguments in favor of concurrent terms, understood that it had the authority to grant concurrent sentences and declined to do so. The court knowingly declined to exercise its discretion to depart from the guidelines. Such a decision, whether made under the guidelines or pursuant to section 3553(b), is not subject to review. See United States v. Morales, 898 F.2d 99, 101-02 (9th Cir.1990).
Home963 f2d 263 united states v. g lail