Hankey

MEMORANDUM **

Lavern Hankey appeals his 151-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea *627 to one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). Hankey contends that the district court erred in imposing a sentence consecutive to Hankey’s undischarged term of imprisonment without first considering whether the sentence should run concurrent and without giving any reason for its decision. We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision to impose a consecutive sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a) and dismiss the appeal.

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 contains three subsections that concern imposition of sentence on a defendant who is subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment. The first, § 5G1.3(a), governs Hankey’s sentence:

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a) (2002).

While the language, “shall be imposed to run consecutively,” appears to be mandatory, the district court has discretion to impose concurrent terms under 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (a). See United States v. Lail, 963 F.2d 263, 264 (9th Cir.1992).

However, under Lail , a district court’s decision to impose a consecutive rather than concurrent sentence under § 5G1.3(a) is…