the district court exercised its discretion to impose a consecutive sentence initially. Three of the other cases involved consecutive sentences for carrying a weapon in conjunction with a drug offense. See United States v. Bailey, 235 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2000); United States v. Edwards, 225 F.3d 991 (8th Cir.2000); and United States v. Goldman, 228 F.3d 942 (8th Cir.2000). The remaining three cases all involved nondrug offenses where the district courts originally used their discretion to impose consecutive sentences. See United States v. Amsden, 213 F.3d 1014, 1016 (8th Cir.2000) (remanding for resentencing in mail threats case where district court had imposed consecutive sentences for extreme conduct under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.8; United States v. Waugh, 207 F.3d 1098, 1102 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lewis, 200 F.3d 1177 (8th
holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences holding that 2003 amendment to ussg  5g13 worked a substantive change to that guideline by eneouraging district courts to impose consecutive sentences while at the same time permitting them  in the exercise of their sound discretion  to make the federal sentence concurrent holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts holding in assault and involun tary manslaughter case that district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences based on finding of whether multiple counts involved the same harm holding that the district court did not err by sentencing a defendant to consecutive prison terms for seconddegree manslaughter and aggravated assault committed against two separate victims because the multiple sentences did not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendants conduct