{"id":199,"date":"2026-07-22T02:52:20","date_gmt":"2026-07-22T02:52:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fedlaws.org\/?p=199"},"modified":"2026-07-22T02:52:20","modified_gmt":"2026-07-22T02:52:20","slug":"how-to-get-charges-to-run-concurrently-in-federal-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fedlaws.org\/?p=199","title":{"rendered":"How to Get Charges to Run Concurrently in Federal Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

To get charges to run concurrent in federal court, you have to work the default rule in your favor at every stage: shape how charges are filed, build concurrency into the plea, and put \u00a7 3553(a) reasons on the record at sentencing. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3584 already treats multiple sentences imposed at the same proceeding as concurrent unless the judge says otherwise, but a new federal sentence imposed while another sentence is undischarged defaults to consecutive.1<\/a><\/sup>Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3584 – Multiple Sentences of Imprisonment<\/a><\/span> Which default you’re fighting decides everything about the strategy.<\/p>\n

Know Which Default You’re Fighting<\/h2>\n

If all your counts are being sentenced together in one federal proceeding, concurrency is already the baseline. The job is defensive: make sure the judge doesn’t override it, and make sure no statute forces consecutive time on a particular count.<\/p>\n

If you’re picking up a new federal sentence while already serving another sentence, whether state or federal, the default runs against you. Silence at sentencing means consecutive time for any offense committed on or after November 1, 1987.1<\/a><\/sup>Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3584 – Multiple Sentences of Imprisonment<\/a><\/span> You need the judge to affirmatively order concurrency, on the record, in the written judgment. Nothing less will do.<\/p>\n

Counts Where Concurrency Isn’t Available<\/h2>\n

Some federal statutes take the decision away from the judge. Before spending energy on a concurrency argument, check whether any count carries a mandatory consecutive term.<\/p>\n

The most common is 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 924(c), covering the use, carrying, or possession of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense. Any sentence imposed under that section is barred by statute from running concurrently with any other sentence, including the sentence for the underlying crime.2<\/a><\/sup>Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 924 – Penalties<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1028A works the same way. A conviction adds a mandatory two-year term that must run consecutively to the underlying felony, or five years if the underlying felony is terrorism-related. Multiple \u00a7 1028A convictions imposed at the same time can run concurrently with each other at the judge’s discretion, but nothing else.3<\/a><\/sup>Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 1028A – Aggravated Identity Theft<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

When a case includes one of these counts, the concurrency fight moves to the other counts, or to negotiating those specific counts out of the case entirely.<\/p>\n

Start With the Prosecutor, Not the Judge<\/h2>\n

The shape of the charging document decides a lot before any judge sees the file. A single conspiracy count that sweeps in a course of conduct tends toward one sentence. Separate counts filed for each individual act within that same conduct create room for consecutive stacks.<\/p>\n

Defense attorneys who engage before indictment, or during the charging phase, can sometimes influence how the case gets structured. Mitigating information delivered early, whether it’s cooperation, remorse, treatment records, or personal circumstances, can push a prosecutor toward consolidating counts or agreeing not to seek consecutive terms.<\/p>\n

Prosecutorial posture at sentencing also matters. In many federal proceedings the government makes a sentencing recommendation, and that recommendation carries weight. A prosecutor who supports concurrent sentencing on the record makes the defense job much easier. A prosecutor who opposes it forces the defense to overcome that position on top of the statutory default.<\/p>\n

Lock Concurrency Into the Plea Agreement<\/h2>\n

Most concurrent-sentence outcomes are actually decided at the plea stage, not the hearing. Raising concurrency in the earliest plea discussions, and getting it in writing, is worth more than any speech at sentencing.<\/p>\n

Prosecutors may agree to recommend concurrent sentences in exchange for a guilty plea, cooperation, or testimony against co-defendants. The defense case for concurrency rests on the same themes that later persuade a judge: the interconnected nature of the charges, the absence of prior record, the nonviolent character of the offenses.<\/p>\n

Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Agreements<\/h3>\n

A standard plea deal includes a sentencing recommendation the judge can take or leave. A Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement is different: the parties agree to a specific sentence or range, and once the judge accepts the plea, the court is bound by it.4<\/a><\/sup>United States Courts. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure<\/a><\/span> If the agreement calls for concurrent sentences, the judge cannot later impose consecutive terms without rejecting the plea outright.<\/p>\n

The tradeoff is scrutiny. Judges look harder at (C) agreements because they surrender discretion. A judge who finds the proposed sentence too lenient can reject the plea and send everyone back to negotiation. These agreements land best when the proposed sentence tracks the guidelines range and the concurrency request is supported by clear facts.<\/p>\n

Use the Presentence Report<\/h2>\n

Before sentencing, a probation officer prepares a presentence investigation report that calculates the offense level and criminal history category, identifies the guidelines range, and flags factors relevant to sentence type and length. It also covers personal history, financial condition, and anything else bearing on sentencing or rehabilitation.5<\/a><\/sup>Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 32 – Sentencing and Judgment<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

This document shapes the judge’s starting point. Waiting for the hearing to argue concurrency is usually too late. Engage the probation officer during the investigation, supply mitigating material early, and object in writing to any error in the draft before it reaches the judge. A report that already treats the counts as interconnected, or that highlights a clean history, does quiet work no closing argument can match.<\/p>\n

Give the Judge Reasons Under \u00a7 3553(a)<\/h2>\n

Outside the mandatory-consecutive statutes, the judge has broad discretion. Discretion still runs through the checklist in 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3553(a): the nature of the offense, the defendant’s history, seriousness, deterrence, public safety, available sentencing options, the guidelines range, and avoiding unwarranted disparities among similarly situated defendants.6<\/a><\/sup>Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3553 – Imposition of a Sentence<\/a><\/span> The strongest arguments for concurrent sentencing hook directly onto that list.<\/p>\n