United States v. Joseph Latham, 667 F. App'x 594

Defendant Joseph Latham pled guilty to: conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; possession with intent to distribute 50+ grams of pure meth; and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
Latham had prior Iowa convictions (2013) for second-degree burglary and second-offense domestic-abuse assault, received a 10-year suspended sentence with five years probation; probation was revoked in June 2015.
The federal offenses occurred between fall 2014 and April 2015 and were charged in May 2015 while the state sentence was undischarged.
The Guidelines (U.S.S.G. §5G1.3(d)) allow a federal sentence to run concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to an undischarged state term, and commentary lists factors to consider.
Latham challenged the district court’s decision to run the federal sentence consecutive to the state term, arguing procedural error because the court supposedly relied only on the view that the state sentence was not relevant conduct and failed to consider 18 U.S.C. §§3584, 3553(a), and the factors in U.S.S.G. §5G1.3(d).
The district court had discussed Latham’s drug/alcohol history, the nature/seriousness of the offenses, and that he was more than a small-time dealer; it imposed a consecutive federal sentence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court procedurally erred in imposing a consecutive federal sentence by failing to consider required factors	Latham: court only relied on statement that prior convictions were unrelated and thus failed to consider §3584, §3553(a), and U.S.S.G. §5G1.3(d) factors	Government/District Court: court thoroughly discussed §3553(a) sentencing factors and had other bases for ordering consecutive time; no separate recital of each factor was required	Affirmed. No procedural error; district court’s discussion of §3553(a) factors justified consecutive sentence and need not restate each consideration separately

United States v. Bryant, 606 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2010) (review for reasonableness of concurrent vs. consecutive sentence and when separate statement of reasons is unnecessary)
United States v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court must explain reasoning for imposing concurrent or consecutive sentence)