Opinion ID: 202709
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sentence on Possession Count

Text: 62 Because Pierre was sentenced to serve concurrent sentences, 8 he was not prejudiced by any error he alleges with respect to the possession count. See United States v. Ziskind, 471 F.3d 266, 271 (1st Cir.2006); see also United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-82, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) ([R]elief for error is tied in some way to prejudicial effect . . . [and requires a] showing of `a reasonable probability that, but for [the error claimed], the result of the proceeding would have been different.' (third alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (opinion of Blackmun, J.))). His 240-month sentence on the possession count runs concurrently with his 432-month sentence on the conspiracy count. 63 Pierre's convictions, his combined sentence, and the forfeiture order entered against him are affirmed.