United States v. Quentin Hall, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10184

On Dec. 18, 2009 Quentin Hall fled police, was arrested, and found with drugs and a firearm; he was on Missouri probation for a drug offense.
State charges (probation violation, assault on an officer, armed criminal action, drug possession, resisting, unlawful use of a firearm, driving while revoked) were pending in Missouri state court.
Federal indictment charged Hall as a felon in possession of a firearm; he was brought into federal custody via writ, pleaded guilty, and faced a Guidelines range of 63–71 months (Offense Level 19, CHC VI).
At federal sentencing (May 13, 2011) the district court varied upward to 90 months and declined to order the federal sentence concurrent with any anticipated state sentences.
Hall returned to state custody; on May 24, 2011 the Missouri court sentenced him on the related state charges and ordered those state sentences to run concurrently with each other and with the federal sentence.
Hall appealed his federal sentence, challenging (1) the above-Guidelines upward variance and (2) the district court’s refusal to order the federal sentence concurrent with the then-unimposed state sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing an above-Guidelines (upward) sentence	Hall argued the upward variance was unreasonable and an abuse of discretion	The government and district court relied on Hall’s extensive criminal history and offense circumstances to justify an upward variance	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; factors relied upon were proper and adequately considered
Whether the district court erred in refusing to order the federal sentence concurrent with an as-yet-unimposed state sentence	Hall argued the court failed to adequately explain or effectively ordered consecutive time by omission	District court explained it declined concurrency because Hall’s time was accruing on state time and a short state sentence might result in inadequate federal punishment; court has discretion under Setser	Affirmed — district court properly exercised discretion and gave sufficient explanation for declining to order concurrency

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for sentencing abuse of discretion)
United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse occurs when court ignores relevant factors or misweighs clearly)
United States v. Gasaway, 684 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2012) (district courts have wide latitude in weighing § 3553(a) factors)
Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012) (district court may order federal sentence to run consecutively to a not-yet-imposed state sentence)
United States v. Winston, 456 F.3d 861 (8th Cir. 2006) (deference to district court on concurrency decisions and § 3553(a) consideration)