Wyner
United States v. Wyner
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Michael D. Wyner appeals the district court’s resentencing after we vacated and remanded his original sentence. He claims that the district court erred in imposing the same sentence — to be served only partially concurrently with a prior undischarged sentence — from which he originally appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the sentence.
Wyner contends that the district court misapplied U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) (1994) when it did not sentence him to the hypothetical combined sentence using the methodology in application note 3 to that guideline. It is undisputed that this approach would have resulted in a fully concurrent sentence. We have held that the methodology in this guideline is not mandatory, however, and a sentencing “court may decline to impose the sentence suggested by the commentary’s methodology if it has a good reason for doing so.” United States v. Redman, 35 F.3d 437, 441 (9th Cir.1995). If the court chooses this latter option, it must “state its reasons for abandoning the commentary methodology in such a way as to allow us to see that it has considered the methodology.” Id.