Case: 19-10353 Document: 00515476482 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-10353 July 2, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ADORIAN RASHAD ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-288-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Adorian Rashad Robinson pleaded guilty to one count of brandishing a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, namely Hobbs Act Robbery. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced him above the guideline range to a 180-month term of imprisonment and ordered that his sentence be served consecutive to his yet-to-be-imposed state sentences. Robinson does not challenge the length of his sentence but argues

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Case: 19-10353 Document: 00515476482 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2020

No. 19-10353 that, because he is only 19 years old, stacking his federal sentence upon unknown future state sentences rendered his federal sentence unreasonable.

The Supreme Court has held that a district court has discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) to order that a federal sentence run consecutively to an anticipated state sentence. See Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231, 236-37 (2012). Although Robinson directs us to “the considerations discussed in the dissenting opinion in [Setser],” he does not identify or explain the considerations applicable here or why this case warrants a different result.

Robinson has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by ordering that his sentence run consecutive to his anticipated state sentence, and he does not otherwise argue that it is substantively unreasonable. See id.; United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.