Setser v. United States
132 S. Ct. 1463
| SCOTUS | 2012Background
- Setser was arrested for meth possession while on Texas probation for another drug offense; federal indictment for possession with intent to distribute 50+ grams; probation officer set guideline range 121–151 months; district court ordered 151 months consecutive to anticipated state sentence for probation revocation but concurrent with state sentence on the new drug charge; state later imposed 5-year probation-revocation sentence and 10-year drug sentence, concurrently; issue is whether district court may order federal sentence to run consecutive to an anticipated (not yet imposed) state sentence; appellate courts split but Fifth Circuit followed district court authority; Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to order anticipatory consecutive sentence | Setser: §3584(a) lacks coverage for anticipatory state sentences | Government: §3584(a) leaves the decision to BOP via §3621(b) | Judicial discretion to set concurrent/consecutive remains with district court in anticipatory context |
| Effect of §3584(a) text | Text implies district courts retain authority; elsewhere implies limitations | Text limits authority to specific scenarios; otherwise BOP may decide | §3584(a) does not strip district court of authority in anticipatory scenarios; court may order consecutive sentences |
| Role of §3621(b) and BOP | BOP exclusive authority to designate place and sequencing | BOP may designate to effect concurrent service; relies on §3621(b) | BOP does not have exclusive sentencing authority; district court retains discretion in this context |
| Federalism and policy considerations | Federal judge should decide to avoid delay and to align with state actions | BOP can coordinate post-sentencing execution; avoids duplication of discretion | Federal judge may determine arrangement up front; concurrent/consecutive order valid; state later actions do not render it unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Salley v. United States, 786 F.2d 546 (CA2 1986) (directly discusses issue of consecutive sentence to future term)
- Anderson v. United States, 405 F.2d 492 (CA10 1969) (per curiam; addressed sentencing consecutive to existing or future terms)
- Lester v. Parker, 404 F.2d 40 (CA3 1968) (addressed issue of sentence sufficiency and certainty)
- Kanton v. United States, 362 F.2d 178 (CA7 1966) (per curiam; addressed concurrent/consecutive authority)
- Eastman v. United States, 758 F.2d 1315 (CA9 1985) (addressed authority to impose sentence concurrent/consecutive to future term)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 ((2009)) (concurrent/consecutive sentencing discretion under double-sovereignty context)