concurrently with the state sentence. This issue has been passed upon in several cases in this circuit. We have consistently held that the language of application note 6 is mandatory. See United States v. Lathern, No. 02-2789, 2003 WL 145638, 59 Fed.Appx. 167 (8th Cir. Jan. 22, 2003); United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 1045, 1048 (8th Cir.2002); United States v. Goldman, 228 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir.2000); United States v. Dungy, No. 95-3997, 1996 WL 193150 (8th Cir. April 23, 1996). Several other circuits have reached the same conclusion. See United States v. Reyes-Lugo, 238 F.3d 305, 309-10 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Gondek, 65 F.3d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir.1995); United States v. Bernard, 48 F.3d 427, 430-32 (9th Cir.1995); But see United States v. Maria, 186 F.3d 65, 70-74 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). As acknowledged by both the Defendant and the
holding that the guidelines did not strip the sentencing court of its discretion to impose a concurrent sentence holding that sentencing court could consider whether the applicable guidelines were outdated and disproportionate but that imposing sentence based on the guidelines did not render sentence substantively unreasonable holding that a court could not agree to impose a sentence within the guidelines but then give a sentence that suspended all but an amount within the guidelines because a reasonable defendant would believe that within the guidelines included suspended time holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines  the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence  constitutes error holding that the district court which had considered the guidelines but found an upward variant sentence necessary given the defendants previous violations did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a 24month sentence instead of a guidelines range sentence of 3 to 9 months incarceration