The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Oropeza, 564 F.2d 316 (9th Cir. 1977):
3 The government contends that, because the sentences for possession with intent to distribute are concurrent with those for conspiracy, and because the distribution sentences are consecutive to the conspiracy sentences, the concurrent sentence doctrine operates to preclude review of this issue. However, the possession and distribution sentences are consecutive to one another, so the concurrent sentence doctrine does not apply. Moreover, the doctrine is discretionary. We may choose to scrutinize the convictions notwithstanding concurrent sentences when appropriate. See United States v. Rodriguez, 546 F.2d 302, 308 (9th Cir. 1976).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.