United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Larry Keith Pfeil, Defendant-appellant, 116 F.3d 489 (10th Cir. 1997)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^* 

BALDOCK

Defendant Larry Pfeil pleaded guilty to possession of firearms and ammunition by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) (1), 921(a) (3), and 924(a) (2). He was subsequently sentenced to 41 months imprisonment. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). The only issue presented by this direct appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider a concurrent or partially concurrent sentence under § 5G1.3(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines. Finding that the district court did consider the potential imposition of a concurrent or partially concurrent sentence, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

It is well settled that a district court "retains discretion in choosing whether to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence." United States v. McCarty, 82 F.3d 943, 951 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 257. However, this discretion is circumscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. Id. at 950. Thus, our review is for an abuse of discretion. See id. at 951.

After examining the record, briefs, Pre-Sentence Report, and all other materials before us, it becomes obvious that the district court was fully aware of his sentencing options under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) and exercised his discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence upon the defendant. Accordingly, we find no reversible error.

AFFIRMED.