Defendant to supervision. Because the Court was silent at sentencing as to whether its sentence would run concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence, it must look to the law with respect to the applicable presumption under these circumstances. Prior to 1984, Congress provided little guidance as to whether sentences ran concurrently or consecutively when the Judge was silent as to either at sentencing. The most relevant statutory provision prior to the Sentencing Reform Act was 18 U.S.C. § 3568, and this gave rise to conflicting interpretations regarding a federal district court’s authority to impose a sentence consecutive or concurrent to a state term. See United States v. Hardesty, 958 F.2d 910, 912-14 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1429, 122 L.Ed.2d 797 (1993) (<HOLDING>), and cases cited therein. Compare United
recognizing conflict between interests of the highest order recognizing the conflict recognizing possible conflict between the cases recognizing conflict recognizing conflict between circuits