Opinion ID: 2982329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Imposing Sentence Consecutively

Text: “[I]f a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively.” 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). “The court, in determining whether the terms imposed are to be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively, shall consider . . . the factors set forth in section 3553(a).” 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b). “When deciding to impose consecutive sentences . . . a district court must indicate on the record its rationale, either expressly or by reference to a discussion of relevant considerations contained elsewhere.” United States v. Cochrane, 702 F.3d 334, 346 (6th Cir. 2012). “What the district court may not do is say nothing at all.” Id. We review the district court’s decision to impose a consecutive sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195, 208-09 (6th Cir. 2011). Cunningham argues that the sentencing judge erred in imposing his federal sentence consecutively because the court did not consider some facts surrounding the state sentence or the 4 There was lengthy discussion of the issue at oral argument, but the gist of counsel’s position can be distilled from this exchange: CUNNINGHAM’S COUNSEL: . . . I think the only way to address that issue is going to have to be on en banc, because, even though the statute . . . JUDGE MERRITT: So you are waiving that issue? CUNNINGHAM’S COUNSEL: I’m not waiving it at all, I just think that—I know that one panel can’t overturn another panel on a published case. -8- Case No. 12-1956 United States v. Cunningham amount of prison time and parole time Cunningham would ultimately serve. We disagree. Judge Quist explicitly considered the section 3553(a) factors on the record. Likewise, the judge explicitly stated his rationale for running Defendant’s sentence consecutively: “separate crimes deserve separate punishments, especially from separate jurisdictions.” Additionally, the court considered on record the type of state crime, the indeterminate nature of Defendant’s state sentence, and the context provided by Defendant’s history of drug problems. While Judge Quist may not have explicitly mentioned every fact Cunningham lists in his brief, the trial court adequately considered the section 3553(a) factors and indicated its rationale as supported by relevant considerations. As such, we find that Judge Quist did not abuse his discretion in running Defendant’s sentence consecutive to his state sentence.