Opinion ID: 568211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Imposition of Consecutive Sentence

Text: 12 Finally, Clark contends that it was error for the district court to impose the two 10-month sentences to run consecutively rather than concurrently. He relies on U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2 (sentencing on multiple counts), the Commentary to which provides that: To the extent possible, the total punishment is to be imposed on each count. Sentences on all counts run concurrently, except as required to achieve the total sentence, or as required by law. However, this section is clearly directed to multiple counts for which sentence is imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Commentary states that total punishment is determined by the adjusted combined offense level. Thus, the multiple counts are factored in to determine the total punishment. Since the total punishment is imposed on each count, permitting the sentences of each count to run consecutively would amount to a double counting of the multiple counts. 13 Since non-Guidelines offenses are not calculated into the adjusted combined offense level, the scheme of § 5G1.2 does not prohibit a non-Guidelines sentence and a Guidelines sentence from running consecutively. When not under the Sentencing Guidelines, the question of whether sentences for separate crimes run concurrently or consecutively is committed to the discretion of the sentencing court, 18 U.S.C. § 3584, and in view of the repetitive criminal conduct in this case, we cannot say that that discretion was abused. Finding no error in the sentencing of Clark, the judgment of the district court is 14 AFFIRMED.