in no way affect and has no bearing on the duration of his federal sentence. There is no need, therefore, for the district court to have made a finding of the likely length of Spiers’ Arkansas state sentence. Finally, Spiers’ argument that the uncertainty of the exact day that his federal sentence will begin renders the sentence infirm simply proves too much. The actual date upon which practically any consecutive sentences will take effect is uncertain. By definition, a consecutive sentence begins when the prior sentence is completed. There are many factors, including the defendant’s behavior during incarceration, the decisions of a parole board, the possibility of an executive pardon or a successful appeal, and even prison conditions, which might determine w , 114 L.Ed.2d 173 (1991) (<HOLDING>). As the district court’s decision to impose a
holding that a defendant must have notice that the trial court might sentence him to death holding that the trial court violated the defendants allocution rights when the court sentenced him without allowing him to offer mitigating remarks holding unconstitutional defendants sentence of death based upon the holding in roper supra and remanding for the montgomery circuit court to set aside the defendants death sentence and to sentence him to the only other sentence available  life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole holding that if a trial court has rejected death as a possible sentence double jeopardy bars the state from seeking the death penalty at resentencing even where rejection of the death sentence was based on a legal error holding that an effective notice of appeal must be filed for this court to have jurisdiction to hear the case