United States v. Kendrick Moody, 930 F.3d 991

Kendrick Moody pleaded guilty to two separate violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1791 for possessing contraband while incarcerated.
The district (magistrate) court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 4–10 months for each count.
Moody asked for concurrent 4-month sentences; the court believed it lacked authority to run the two § 1791 sentences concurrently and instead imposed two consecutive 4-month terms.
The court explained it thought the § 1791 statutory language required consecutive service, overriding the Guidelines.
Moody appealed, arguing the court wrongly concluded it lacked authority to impose the two § 1791 sentences concurrently with each other.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and found the district court made a significant procedural error, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court had authority to run two § 1791 sentences concurrently with each other	Moody: § 1791 only mandates that a new § 1791 term be consecutive to the undischarged sentence being served when the violation occurred; it does not bar running multiple § 1791 sentences concurrently with each other	Government: the court permissibly imposed consecutive sentences and, even if mistaken, the error was harmless because the court properly considered § 3553(a) factors and imposed within-Guidelines terms	The court erred in believing it lacked authority; § 1791 does not prevent the court from imposing the two § 1791 sentences concurrently with each other. The error was not harmless. Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012) (district courts generally have discretion to impose sentences concurrently or consecutively)
United States v. Mitchell, 476 F.3d 539 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for legal sentencing errors)
United States v. Roberson, 517 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 2008) (remand required when court is unaware of its sentencing authority)
United States v. Tabor, 531 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2008) (failure to understand sentencing authority is a significant procedural error)
United States v. Thorpe, 447 F.3d 565 (8th Cir. 2006) (government bears burden to show harmlessness when court commits sentencing error benefitting government)
United States v. Joseph, 716 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court’s failure to recognize authority to impose concurrent § 1791 sentences is error warranting reversal)
United States v. Mulverhill, 833 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2016) (harmlessness standard: reversal required unless court’s error clearly did not affect sentencing outcome)