United States v. Eddys Faraminan, 707 F. App'x 590

Eddys Faraminan was serving a 72-month federal sentence from 2012 that included a consecutive 24-month term for three aggravated identity theft convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (Walmart gift-card scheme).
In 2016, while still imprisoned, he was convicted in a separate case of access device fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029) and four additional counts of aggravated identity theft under § 1028A (casino cash-advance scheme).
At the 2016 sentencing, the district court imposed 10 months on the § 1029 count and a consecutive 24 months on the § 1028A counts (total 34 months), and ordered all 2016 terms to run concurrently with the undischarged portion of the 2012 sentence.
The government appealed only the district court’s decision to run the 2016 § 1028A sentences concurrently with the undischarged 2012 sentence, arguing § 1028A forbids concurrency except in a narrow, statutorily defined circumstance.
The Eleventh Circuit held that § 1028A(b)(2) plainly requires that terms under § 1028A not run concurrently with any other term, and the only concurrency exception (§ 1028A(b)(4)) permits concurrency solely for multiple § 1028A terms imposed "at the same time." Because the 2012 and 2016 § 1028A sentences were not imposed at the same time, concurrency was impermissible.
The court vacated the 2016 § 1028A sentences (Counts Two–Five) and remanded for resentencing; it left the § 1029 concurrent sentence undisturbed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a § 1028A sentence imposed later may run concurrently with an undischarged earlier sentence that included a § 1028A term	Gov: § 1028A(b)(2) prohibits concurrency except where sentences under § 1028A are imposed "at the same time" per § 1028A(b)(4); thus concurrency here is impermissible	Faraminan: district court may exercise sentencing discretion to run the later § 1028A sentence concurrent with the earlier undischarged sentence; the crimes were related and close in time	Court: § 1028A(b)(2) bars concurrency and (b)(4) allows concurrency only for multiple § 1028A terms imposed at the same time; concurrency here was illegal

In re Hill, 715 F.3d 284 (11th Cir. 2013) (statutory interpretation starts with plain meaning)
Shockley v. Comm’r, 686 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2012) (stop inquiry if statute unambiguous)
United States v. McLymont, 45 F.3d 400 (11th Cir. 1995) (mandatory consecutive language precludes concurrency)
United States v. Wright, 33 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 1994) (statutory text can forbid concurrent terms absolutely)
CBS Inc. v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001) (avoid constructions that render statutory language meaningless)
Legal Envtl. Assistance Found., Inc. v. EPA, 276 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2001) (give effect to all words in a statute)