Background
Defendant Saleumkiat Kayarath appealed sentences imposed upon revoking his supervised release in two separate criminal cases. At the time of sentencing, Kayarath was awaiting sentencing in state court for charges arising from the same conduct. He argued the district court should not have ordered his federal sentence to run consecutive to the anticipated state sentence.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the district court’s interpretation of federal law de novo and its sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. Citing Setser v. United States, the court noted that judges have long possessed common-law discretion to decide whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively, including regarding anticipated state sentences. The court found no statute or Sentencing Guidelines provision dictated the outcome here. The court rejected the argument that discretion is limited by the defendant’s custody status or by a state plea agreement. It emphasized that in the federal system, the sovereign receiving custody second typically decides on credit, and a federal court’s decision remains valid even if the state later thwarts the consecutive arrangement.
What it means going forward
Federal courts may continue to exercise discretion to order consecutive sentences to anticipated state sentences without being constrained by state plea agreements or the defendant’s current custody status.