United States v. Christopher Jason Henry, 968 F.3d 1276

Christopher Henry committed a burglary in Nov 2016, was convicted in state court, and received a 20-year Alabama sentence; by Nov 2018 he had served ~24 months.
A federal indictment charged Henry with being a felon in possession of firearms; he was brought into federal custody via a writ ad prosequendum, pleaded guilty, and was subject to a federal PSR that calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 130–162 months (reduced to the 120-month statutory maximum).
Henry requested an adjustment under U.S.S.G. §5G1.3(b)(1) to subtract the 24 months already served on the undischarged state sentence, which would lower the maximum lawful federal sentence to 96 months; the government agreed conceptually.
The district court imposed 108 months, said the federal and state terms would run concurrently, but refused to apply the §5G1.3(b)(1) mandatory adjustment, reasoning the Sentencing Commission cannot dictate a ‘‘shall.’’
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and vacated the sentence, holding that §5G1.3(b)(1) requires a post-selection adjustment for time already served when its four prerequisites are met and that Booker does not render that provision optional.

Issue	Henry's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether §5G1.3(b)(1) required the district court to adjust Henry's federal sentence for 24 months already served on a related state sentence	§5G1.3(b)(1) is mandatory—"shall adjust"—and its requirements were met, so the court must subtract 24 months from the imposed federal term	Because Guidelines are advisory after Booker, the district court could decline to apply §5G1.3(b)(1) and instead vary under §3553(a)	The provision is mandatory when its requirements are satisfied; the district court erred by not adjusting the sentence
Whether Booker’s holding that the Guidelines are advisory prevents mandatory application of §5G1.3(b)(1)	Booker does not render every mandatory-sounding guideline advisory; §5G1.3(b)(1) does not increase a sentence via judicial factfinding and does not alter the calculated guideline range	§5G1.3(b)(1) is part of the advisory regime and may be overridden by district courts exercising §3553(a) discretion	Booker does not excuse failure to follow §5G1.3(b)(1); the guideline mandates a post-selection sentence adjustment and does not conflict with Booker

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (held Sentencing Guidelines range is advisory after Sixth Amendment error remedy)
United States v. Gonzalez-Murillo, 852 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir.) (held §5G1.3(b)(1) mandatory in §3582(c)(2) sentence-modification proceedings)
United States v. Knight, 562 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir.) (vacated sentence for failure to apply §5G1.3(b)(1))
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (explained Commission-promulgated Guidelines have force of law)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (treats Guidelines and commentary as authoritative absent conflict with statute or Constitution)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (affirmed district courts’ discretion to vary from Guidelines under §3553(a))
United States v. Helm, 891 F.3d 740 (8th Cir.) (explained §5G1.3(b)(1) effects occur after guideline-range calculation)
United States v. Lange, 862 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir.) (applies ordinary interpretive rules to Guidelines)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (limits on reducing sentences in §3582(c)(2) proceedings)
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (discusses appellate review and sentencing discretion)