Perkins’ testimony were not prejudicial in these circumstances. D. Downward Departures Kornegay claims that the district court erroneously denied him a downward departure on either of two bases. Both departure arguments relate to the 14-month state drug conviction sentence which Kornegay served after the drug deal at issue in this case but before he was indicted. The first ground for departure was premised on the government’s delay in prosecuting Kornegay in order to protect Chaney from being detected as an informant. Kornegay argued that this delay foreclosed the possibility of his federal sentence running concurrently with his state sentence and that a departure should be granted so that he would not be prejudiced. See United States v. Saldana, 109 F.3d 100, 104 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The district court declined to grant the
holding that although the defendant was paroled rather than released unconditionally his state sentence was discharged for purposes of deciding whether the federal judge could impose a concurrent sentence holding that prosecutorial delay that was extreme or sinister could support a departure if the defendant was required to serve a state sentence which could have been concurrent with the federal sentence had the federal prosecution proceeded sooner holding that a federal sentence commences when the attorney general receives the convicted defendant into custody for service of that sentence holding that the defendant was entitled to counsel when the offense for which he was tried could result in the imposition of a jail sentence holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over  1983 claims