Opinion ID: 66547
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Procedure: Consecutive Sentences

Text: Ordonez argues that the district court lacked the statutory authority to order his federal sentence to run consecutively to his yet-to-be imposed state court sentence. In support of his argument, Ordonez relies on United States v. Quintana-Gomez, 521 F.3d 495, 496 (5th Cir. 2008). This court reviews a sentence, including its consecutive nature, for reasonableness. United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006). A district court’s authority to order a consecutive sentence is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), which provides that “if 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.” This court has held that a district court’s authority to impose a consecutive sentence under § 3584(a) includes the authority to order that a federal sentence run consecutively to a not-yet-imposed state sentence. See United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by Candia, 454 F.3d at 473. The rule announced in Brown is the law of this Circuit, which forecloses ruling on this issue.