U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 227— SENTENCES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER D— IMPRISONMENT

18 U.S.C. § 3584

Multiple sentences of imprisonment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Imposition of Concurrent or Consecutive Terms.—If multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant at the same time, or if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively, except that the terms may not run consecutively for an attempt and for another offense that was the sole objective of the attempt. Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time run concurrently unless the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms are to run consecutively. Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently.(b)Factors To Be Considered in Imposing Concurrent or Consecutive Terms.—The court, in determining whether the terms imposed are to be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively, shall consider, as to each offense for which a term of imprisonment is being imposed, the factors set forth in section 3553(a).(c)Treatment of Multiple Sentence as an Aggregate.—Multiple terms of imprisonment ordered to run consecutively or concurrently shall be treated for administrative purposes as a single, aggregate term of imprisonment.(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 212(a)(2), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2000.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Nov. 1, 1987, and applicable only to offenses committed after the taking effect of this section, see section 235(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as a note under section 3551 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,711 cases (378 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012). · cites it 10× “UNITED STATES Syllabus ready subject to” the state sentences at issue, 18 U. S. C. §3584 (a). This does not mean, as Setser and the Government claim, that the District Court lacked authority to act as it did and that the Bureau of Prisons is to make the concurrent-vs.”
United States v. Gary Giovon Lynn, 912 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 10× “at 236 , the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (a) allows judges to impose a federal sentence concurrently or consecutively to an anticipated, but unimposed, state sentence, id.”
Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 14× “Under 18 U.S.C. § 3584 , "[m]ultiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently.”
United States v. Blaine Travis Fifield, 432 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 10× “Second, he contends that the district court violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 3584 and 3553 by failing to state in open court its reasons for deciding to run the sentences consecutively.”
United States v. Dees, 467 F.3d 847 (3rd Cir. 2006). · cites it 7× “Judge Schwab then had the AUSA read aloud 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (a), which governs the imposition of concurrent or consecutive terms when multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed.”
United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751 (1997). · cites it 7× “Nor, to take another example, could the phrase mean to include the federal statute that governs "[m]ultiple sentences of imprisonment," 18 U. S. C. § 3584—a statute that grants sentencing judges broad authority to "run" multiple sentences either "concurrently or consecutively.”
United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2006). · cites it 5× “Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (a) — a statute undisturbed by Booker — provides that Candia’s federal term of imprisonment may run concurrently or consecutively to his undischarged Texas term of imprisonment.”
United States v. Lymon, 905 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2018). · cites it 15× “2 indicated Lymon's sentences should run concurrently, the district court instead imposed them consecutively, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3584 . The court did not procedurally err because the sentencing guidelines are only advisory, the district court considered the guidelines'…”
United States of Am. v. Modesto Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 2001). · cites it 5× “The Government responds that, under 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (a), 4 the district court had the authority and the discretion to impose consecutive sentences upon the revocation of Gonzalez’s concurrent terms of supervised release.”
United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “18 U.S.C. § 3584 (a). Exercise of that authority, however, is predicated on the district court’s consideration of the factors listed in 18 U.”
United States v. Setser, 607 F.3d 128 (5th Cir. 2010). · cites it 6× “Setser timely appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court’s sentence was illegal since 18 U.S.C. § 3584 does not grant the district court the authority to impose a feder *130 al sentence consecutively to an undischarged state sentence.”
United States of Am., & Cross-Appellee v. Robert J. Shewmaker, Sr., & Cross-Appellant, 936 F.2d 1124 (10th Cir. 1991). · cites it 7× “The Wills court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (a), irrespective of Guideline § 5G1.”
Show all 1,711 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) — 9 cases
United States v. Lee Ayers, 795 F.3d 168 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
United States v. Gilberto Arbelaez, 812 F.2d 530 (9th Cir. 1987).
United States v. Gonzalez, 133 F. App'x 1 (3rd Cir. 2005).
Crosby v. Warden Underwood (W.D. Pa. 2025).
Jim R. Harris, Jr. v. Warden Keyes (S.D. Miss. 2026).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) — 2 cases
United States v. Thornton (2d Cir. 2023).
United States v. Isaias Pablo-Fabin (11th Cir. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.