After the defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court did not err in failing to impose a sentence to run concurrent with an anticipated term of state imprisonment.
The district court recognized its discretion to order a concurrently-run sentence, but it found that the seriousness of the defendant’s offense conduct justified the court’s decision not to exercise that discretion. In most cases, the district court should decide whether its sentence will run concurrently with or consecutive to an anticipated state sentence involving relevant conduct. But the U.S. Sentencing Commission has pointed out that exercise of the court’s discretion will depend on the adequacy of the information available. Here, it is clear that the defendant’s case was not routine, and the court lacked adequate information to intelligently decide as to concurrent or consecutive sentencing. Thus, the court’s action was not erroneous.
Affirmed. Judge Floyd concurred in part and dissented in part.