Jesus Meraz-Amado appeals his consecutive sentences following revocation of supervised release and guilty-plea conviction of possessing with intent to distribute a substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana.

Meraz-Amado argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences because the district court mistakenly believed that consecutive sentences were required under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines. However, given the colloquy at sentencing between the district court and defense counsel, the record does not support Meraz-Amado’s contention that the district court misunderstood its discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925-29 (5th Cir. 2001). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.