How does the single sentence rule apply to enhancements to the 2L1.2(b)(2) and (b)(3) sentences?

waythe seriousness of a defendants prior offense. The single sentence rule requires aggregation only when sentences are ordered to run consecutively . The imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences generally reflects a decision by either a sentencing judge or, in some cases when sentences are statutorily required to run consecutively, by a legislature, that a consecutive term of imprisonment would better reflect the seriousness of a defendants conduct as well as the need for deterrence, education or treatment of the defendant, and protection of the public. See 18 U.S.C. 3584 (stating that "[m]ultiple 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," and directing judges to consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553 "in determining whether the terms imposed are to be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively"); 18 U.S.C. 3553 (sentencing factors); Setser v. United States , 566 U.S. 231, 236, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012) ("Judges have long been understood to have discretion to select whether the sentences they impose will run concurrently or consecutively with respect to other sentences that they impose."). Applying the single sentence rule to the 2L1.2(b)(2) and (b)(3) enhancements therefore captures the seriousness of a defendants prior convictions and achieves the same goal that the previous categorical approach sought to achieve.