United States v. Maurice Arnold, 671 F. App'x 132

Maurice Deshon Arnold pled guilty to possession of a stolen firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) pursuant to a plea agreement.
Arnold had an undischarged state sentence; the district court credited him for time served on that state sentence when calculating his federal sentence.
The district court imposed a 93-month federal sentence and ordered it to run consecutively to the remainder of Arnold’s state sentence.
Some conduct underlying the state sentence overlapped with the federal offense’s relevant conduct, but the state conviction for negligent child abuse causing serious bodily injury was not part of the federal relevant conduct.
Arnold appealed, arguing the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines and failed to adequately explain imposing a consecutive sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred applying Guidelines in ordering consecutive sentence	Arnold: Court misapplied Guidelines and should not have run sentence consecutively	Government: Court properly applied USSG § 5G1.3 and had discretion to impose consecutive sentence	Court: No error; § 5G1.3(d) permitted discretion to run sentence consecutively when not all prior offense is relevant conduct
Whether district court provided adequate explanation for consecutive sentence	Arnold: Explanation was insufficient under procedural-reasonableness standards	Government: Court considered appropriate factors (including § 3553(a)) and adequately explained decision	Court: Explanation was sufficient; sentencing was procedurally reasonable
Standard of review for Guidelines application and concurrency decision	Arnold: Not disputed; challenges the application	Government: Sentencing reviewed for abuse of discretion; Guidelines application reviewed de novo	Court: Applied abuse-of-discretion for sentence reasonableness and de novo for Guidelines application; no reversible error
Whether overlapping conduct required concurrent sentence under USSG	Arnold: Overlap meant consecutive sentence improper	Government: Because some state conduct was not relevant, § 5G1.3(b)/(d) allow consecutive sentence	Court: Agreed with Government; comment to § 5G1.3 means concurrent only when all prior offense is relevant conduct

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentence reviewed for procedural and substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Berry, 814 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. standard on sentencing review)
United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092 (standard for reviewing concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing decisions)