United States v. Ramon, 958 F.3d 919

Charles Ramon III was on supervised release after a federal § 922(g)(1) conviction; his probation officer filed petitions to revoke for drug and firearm violations.
At the revocation hearing the district court found three violations (most serious: Grade B firearm violation) and imposed the statutory maximum revocation term of 24 months.
The district court ordered Ramon’s 24-month sentence to run “consecutively to any sentences imposed previously or prospectively in federal or state court.” Ramon did not object at sentencing.
On appeal Ramon argued the district court exceeded its authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) by ordering his sentence consecutive to future federal sentences.
The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred: § 3584(a) reserves the concurrent/consecutive decision to the later-imposing court when multiple terms are imposed at different times.
Because Ramon did not object below, the court applied plain-error review and held the error was not "plain" under current law, so the sentence was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court may order its sentence to run consecutively to future federal sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)	§ 3584(a) bars a court from preemptively dictating consecutive treatment to later federal sentences; the later court must decide concurrency	A sentencing court may impose its sentence consecutive to anticipated future federal sentences	The district court erred: § 3584(a) reserves the concurrent/consecutive decision to the later-imposing court, so a preemptive order to future federal sentences exceeds its authority
Whether the error is reviewable and reversible given no objection at sentencing	N/A (Ramon sought relief on appeal)	Government: no timely objection; plain-error standard applies	Error was not "plain" under current law (no controlling Supreme Court/Tenth Circuit precedent and statute not obvious), so reversal not warranted; judgment affirmed

Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012) (describes § 3584(a) framework and considers authority to order consecutive treatment to anticipated state sentences)
United States v. Almonte-Reyes, 814 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2016) (holds earlier federal court may not order sentence consecutive to a later federal sentence)
United States v. Obey, 790 F.3d 545 (4th Cir. 2015) (concludes preemptive consecutive orders to future federal sentences are impermissible)
United States v. Montes-Ruiz, 745 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 2014) (reaches same conclusion that later court controls concurrency decision)
United States v. Brown, 316 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2003) (discusses plain-error review and when statutory or guideline text can make an error "plain")
United States v. Titties, 852 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2017) (explains distinction between erroneous and "illegal" sentences for plain-error purposes)