proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 156-57 (footnotes omitted). However, in the case of multiple counts of conviction, the guidelines instruct that if the total punishment mandated by the guidelines exceeds the highest statutory maximum, the district court must impose consecutive terms of imprisonment to the extent necessary to achieve the total punishment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.2(d) (2000). Therefore, the district court was obligated to impose consecutive sentences on Turnbull’s various convictions until it reached the total punishment of one hundred years. United States v. White, 238 F.3d 537, 542-43 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1074, 121 S.Ct. 2235, 150 L.Ed.2d 225 (2001). See also United States v. Roberts, 262 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, Turnbull cannot show that his
holding that party asserting plain error must show a reasonable probability that but for the error claimed the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that it is the burden of the party who failed to preserve his argument to demonstrate plain error holding the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate the error satisfies each prong of the plain error test holding that if the result of white stacking yields the functional equivalent of a life sentence defendant cannot demonstrate plain error holding that a defendant must be granted credit for time served in any institution serving as the functional equivalent of a county jail