Court Opinion

ID: 9480077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:37:09.5581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:28.001543
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I dissent with respect to the majority’s treatment of the consecutive nature of Creed’s sentence. The presentence report advised the district court that Guidelines § 5G1.3 required Creed’s sentence for escape to run consecutively with the unexpired portion of his previous sentence. Section 5G1.3, however, directly conflicts with the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (1988) giving district courts discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences. In my view, the Guidelines simply cannot take precedence over the plain lan*966guage of the statute. United States v. Wills, 881 F.2d 823, 825-26 (9th Cir.1989). But see United States v. Fossett, 881 F.2d 976, 980 (11th Cir.1989).
In the absence of any indication in the record to the contrary, we must assume that the district court relied upon the incorrect statement of the law contained in the presentence report.1 Accordingly, I would remand for resentencing in light of section 3584(a).

. This aspect of sentencing is fundamental and we can review it for plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b).