United States v. Carter, 652 F.3d 894

Carter pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court sentenced him to 105 months' imprisonment with three years' supervised release.
The offense arose from a July 12, 2008 motel robbery in Little Rock; officers found a semiautomatic pistol and cash in Carter's car, and a state-court robbery/theft conviction followed in January 2009.
Carter had state custody time (time served) related to the state robbery/theft convictions and was expected to be released from state custody in December 2016.
At sentencing, Carter urged a § 5G1.3(b)(1) reduction to 60–81 months to account for time already served; the district court calculated 84–105 months but chose to impose a sentence outside the guideline reduction after considering § 3553(a) factors.
The district court also imposed a special condition prohibiting Carter from employment with FDIC-insured institutions or Federal Credit Unions, based on his history.
The Eighth Circuit majority affirmed; Judge Bye filed a dissent arguing (1) improper disregard of § 5G1.3(b)(1) and non-harmless error, and (2) an abusive occupational restriction without adequate individualized findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 5G1.3(b)(1) credit was properly applied	Carter contends the district court failed to credit time served under § 5G1.3(b)(1).	United States argues the district court properly considered § 5G1.3(b)(1) and chose a variance despite not applying the credit as an adjustment.	No reversible error; court properly considered § 5G1.3(b)(1) and variance completed after recognizing guidelines were non-mandatory.
Whether the district court's special FDIC/FDIC-insured employment restriction is valid	Carter argues the restriction lacks a reasonably direct relationship to the offense and lacks individualized findings.	United States contends the restriction is supported by history and statute, and is permissible.	The district court's occupational restriction is upheld as reasonable under applicable standards.

United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 556 (8th Cir. 2009) (guidelines are not mandatory; consider § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Morris, 458 F.3d 757 (8th Cir. 2006) (§ 5G1.3(b) prerequisites; time-served credit context)
United States v. Parker, 512 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2008) (团 § 5G1.3(b) applicability when relevant conduct; credit concerns)
United States v. Carlson, 406 F.3d 529 (8th Cir. 2005) (occupational restrictions during supervised release analyzed)
United States v. Burch, 406 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2005) (relevance of underlying conduct to § 5G1.3(b) analysis)