hundred grams of cocaine, and the judgment should be corrected to reflect this fact. B. Consecutive Sentences Meléndez claims that the district court erroneously ordered him to serve the sentences in Appeal Nos. 01-2386 and 01-2397 consecutively. In his view, the convictions should be considered multiple counts of the same case for sentencing purposes. He contends that the offenses all involved similar conduct, that these offenses occurred only three months apart, that he was not arrested until after he had taken the actions underlying the charges in both cases, and that both cases were disposed of on the same day in the same proceeding. On this basis, he argues that his sentences should run concurrently. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2; United States v. Quiñones, 26 F.3d 213, 217 (1st Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The government asserts that Meléndez has
holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences holding that sentences within the guideline range are presumptively reasonable holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts holding that a court may impose consecutive sentences for multiplecount cases only after following the accepted protocol for guideline departures 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