Raygosa-Esparza

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Raygosa-Esparza challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. He also argues his sentence is unconstitu- tional — because the court considered factors outside the jury verdict in determining the sentence, and the sentence was vin- dictive. At the heart of each of these claims lies his contention that the district court erred in imposing consecutive, rather 5898 UNITED STATES v. RAYGOSA-ESPARZA than concurrent, sentences. This argument necessarily fails, because the district court was required by statute to impose consecutive sentences.

[1] Raygosa-Esparza was convicted of conspiring to pos- sess and distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and attempting to obtain contraband in prison, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2). When a defendant vio- lates § 1791(a)(2) by attempting to obtain or possess a con- trolled substance, as Raygosa-Esparza did, his sentence must be served consecutively to any other sentence involving a controlled substance:

[A]ny punishment imposed under subsection (b) for a violation of this section involving a controlled sub- stance shall be consecutive to any other sentence imposed by any court…