Opinion ID: 797991
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reasonableness of Matera's sentence

Text: 28 Matera argues that the district court abused its discretion in declining to make his federal sentence concurrent with a previously imposed sentence that he was then still serving. Matera argued at his sentencing proceeding that the court should consider that since going to jail on the previous sentence he had made an effort to change his life. 29 At the time of his sentencing hearing, Matera had 16 months remaining from a previously imposed sentence in the Eastern District of New York. The district court had discretion to impose a concurrent, partially concurrent, or consecutive sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (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); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) (the sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant offense). The district court found that despite Matera's claim of good conduct while in prison, a consecutive sentence best reflected the seriousness of his crime. 30 [A] district court's sentencing decisions under § 5G1.3(c) will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. United States v. Livorsi, 180 F.3d 76, 82 (2d Cir.1999); see also United States v. Maria, 186 F.3d 65, 71 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that section 5G1.3(c) vests broad discretion in the sentencing court to fashion an appropriate sentence). In determining whether to impose a concurrent sentence, the sentencing court shall consider, as to each offense for which a term of imprisonment is being imposed, the factors set forth in section 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b). We find no abuse of discretion. 1