United States v. Edward Lee Smith, 983 F.3d 1006

In 2008 Smith was convicted of possession with intent to distribute and manufacturing cocaine base; he received 120 months imprisonment and eight years supervised release.
While on supervised release, the Probation Office filed a violation petition (Feb 2019) and Smith was charged (May 2019) and pled guilty (July 2019) to possession with intent to distribute; the plea agreement provided the government would not object to concurrent sentences.
At sentencing the court noted the guilty plea implicated a supervised-release violation; Smith waived a revocation hearing and the court addressed both cases together.
The district court discussed the Guidelines (including § 7B1.3(f), which calls for consecutive time), said it thought consecutive time was "required" as read in the Guidelines but also stated it would "adjust things" and impose consecutive time because it "makes sense" to recognize a new federal felony committed while on supervision.
The court sentenced Smith to 180 months on the new conviction and 30 months on the supervised-release violation to run consecutively (total 210 months). Smith appealed, arguing the court procedurally erred by treating the Guidelines as mandatory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court procedurally erred by treating the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory in imposing consecutive sentences	Smith: The court said the consecutive term was "required," showing it treated the Guidelines as mandatory and committed procedural error	Government: The record shows parties and the court treated the Guidelines as advisory; the court exercised discretion to impose consecutive time to recognize the new felony while on supervision	The court affirmed: no procedural error — viewing the record as a whole, the district court understood the Guidelines were advisory and properly exercised discretion to impose consecutive sentences

United States v. Green, 946 F.3d 433 (8th Cir. 2019) (treating the Guidelines as mandatory is procedural error)
United States v. Marshall, 891 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review: factual findings for clear error, legal questions de novo)
United States v. Kirlin, 859 F.3d 539 (8th Cir. 2017) (review the sentencing record as a whole to determine procedural correctness)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (lists actions constituting procedural error, including treating Guidelines as mandatory)
United States v. Moody, 930 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2019) (if significant procedural error is found, appellate court must reverse unless the error was harmless)