United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Daniel Eugene Frazer, Defendant-appellant, 139 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Daniel Eugene Frazer appeals consecutive sentences imposed upon him for committing a bank robbery and for violating the terms of his prior supervised release sentence. We affirm.

Primarily, Frazer asserts that the district court erred by not adequately discussing the factors it considered in imposing consecutive sentences. The Sentencing Guidelines strongly encourage consecutive sentences when a defendant violates the terms of his supervised release by committing a crime. See USSG § 5G1.3(c) & comment. (n.6); USSG § 7B1.3(f) & comment. (n.4).¹  The district court considered the appropriate factors in opting for consecutive sentences, including the Sentencing Guidelines' policy statements regarding violations of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3584(b); USSG Ch.7, Pt.A, intro. comment. 3(a); United States v. Forrester, 19 F.3d 482, 484 (9th Cir. 1994). The court also sufficiently stated its general reasons for the sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c); United States v. Lockard, 910 F.2d 542, 546 (9th Cir. 1990). In the same vein, Frazer contends that the district court failed to recognize that its choice of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences was a discretionary one. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); United States v. Kikuyama, 109 F.3d 536, 538 (9th Cir. 1997). The record belies this contention; the district court recognized its discretion.

Frazer raises a secondary argument which we have carefully considered. It, too, is without merit.

AFFIRMED.