Richart argues, further, that the district court erred in running the two sixty-month sentences consecutive to each other. “[W]e review the district court's decision to impose consecutive sentences for reasonableness.” United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir.2010). Richart contends that the district court's decision to impose consecutive sentences was unreasonable because it violated U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2 and because there was not a sufficient basis to run the counts consecutively.
See USSG § 5Gl.2(c); United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2010). Although we agree with Lone Fight that USSG § 5G1.2 does not call for consecutive sentences in this case, the advisory guidelines are not the exclusive basis for imposing consecutive sentences for multiple counts of conviction.
" This court first looks for procedural error, United States v. Thorne , 896 F.3d 861, 864 (8th Cir. 2018), reviewing "the district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences for reasonableness." United States v. Rutherford , 599 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2010), citing Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). However, Bonnell did not object to consecutive sentences at sentencing.
United States v. Azure, 596 F.3d 449, 456 (8th Cir. 2010). The district court's decision to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences is reviewed for reasonableness. United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2010). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), when multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed at the same time, they will run concurrently "unless the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms are to run consecutively."
. In doing so, it need not discuss 18 U.S.C. § 3584, if it properly considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, as required by § 3584. United States v. Becker, 636 F.3d 402, 408 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 822 (8th Cir. 2010).
"In fashioning sentences, whether concurrent or consecutive, a district court must still continue to determine the appropriate Guidelines range and then consider the § 3553(a) factors." United States v. Rutherford , 599 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 2010). The Guidelines do not mandate concurrent sentences.
18 U.S.C. § 3584, along with the § 3553(a) factors it implicates, present such relevant statutory concerns. See United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 2010).The district court, therefore, had discretion here to "deviate under 18 U.S.C. § 3584" from the guidelines’ recommendation that Lymon’s sentences run concurrently and to impose, instead, consecutive sentences after considering the § 3553(a) factors.
We review all sentences, including sentences that vary from the Guidelines, for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir.2010) (citations omitted). “A district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.”
We review all sentences, including sentences that vary from the Guidelines, for an abuse of discretion." United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). "A district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.
We review the district court's ultimate decision to impose a consecutive rather than concurrent sentence for reasonableness. United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2010). In making this determination we review the district court's factual findings for clear error and the application of the sentencing guidelines de novo.