IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10560
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL RAY MIOTKE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:97-CR-119-2-R
December 22, 1998
Before JOHNSON, DUHE’, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Ray Miotke appeals his sentence following his guilty plea
conviction for producing and passing counterfeit money. He argues that
the district court failed to consider the factors listed in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) when it ordered that his federal sentences were to run
consecutively to his anticipated state sentence.
We review a district court’s decision to have a defendant’s
sentences run consecutively for an abuse of discretion, but whether the
district court properly applied the sentencing guidelines will be
reviewed de novo. See United States v. Richardson, 87 F.3d 706, 710
*
Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the
limited circumstances set forth in 5th CIR. R. 47.5.4.
(5th Cir. 1996). After a careful review of the record, we hold that the
district court made comments which sufficiently indicated an implicit
general consideration of the section 3553(a) factors. See Richardson,
87 F.3d at 711; United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1217 (5th Cir.
1991). Because the record is not so lacking as to illustrate a
disregard of those factors, we find no error by the district court.
Miotke also argues that the district court erroneously increased
his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(2). He contends that
Application Note 4 of that section should be interpreted to disallow the
enhancement if the money was photocopied. Miotke’s arugment was
rejected and is foreclosed by United States v. Wyjack, 141 F.3d 181,
183-84 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.
2