or consecutively, shall consider, as to each offense for which a term of imprisonment is being imposed, the factors set forth in section 3553(a). The plain language of this statute does not grant a district court authority to order that its sentence run consecutively to a future sentence. Rather, the statute gives a court power to determine whether a sentence will “run concurrently or consecutively” only when a defendant is (1) sentenced to “multiple terms of imprisonment ... at the same time,” or (2) “already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (emphasis added). Because the district court in this case sentenced Smith to multiple terms of imprisonment for bank robbery at the same time, it had authority under § 3584(a) to run the f (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Clayton, 927 F.2d 491, 492
holding that probation does not constitute a sentence recognizing that if a guidelines error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed the sentence should be affirmed holding that where a district court clearly indicates that an alternative sentence would be identical to the sentence imposed under the guidelines any error that may attach to a defendants sentence under booker is harmless holding that   3584a does not authorize district courts to order a sentence to be served consecutively to a notyetimposed state sentence recognizing that the section does not  authorize suits for cancellation in the district courts