In the

    United States Court of Appeals
                 For the Seventh Circuit
                     ____________________
No. 24-2198
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                 v.

DION A. BELL,
                                               Defendant-Appellant.
                     ____________________

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                   Eastern District of Wisconsin.
           No. 22-CR-250-JPS — J. P. Stadtmueller, Judge.
                     ____________________

       ARGUED APRIL 23, 2025 — DECIDED JUNE 3, 2025
                ____________________

   Before HAMILTON, KIRSCH, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit
Judges.
    PER CURIAM. Dion Bell was found guilty of possession of a
firearm as a felon. See 

(g)(1). At sentencing, the
district court determined that Bell had at least three prior con-
victions for serious drug offenses and thus was subject to a
fifteen-year mandatory sentence as an armed career criminal.
See 

 § 924(e)(1). On appeal, Bell contends that the district
court erroneously concluded that it lacked authority to
2                                                   No. 24-2198

impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum to account
for a discharged state sentence. Because the district court was
correct that it lacked such authority, we affirm.
    On May l3, 2022, Milwaukee police officers investigating a
shooting saw Bell emerge from a residential building with the
suspect. Officers obtained a search warrant and discovered
several firearms in one of the units of the building. Bell’s DNA
was found on two of the guns. At the time, Bell was on ex-
tended supervision for felony convictions in a prior, unre-
lated Wisconsin case. (Those felony convictions included pos-
session of narcotic drugs and possession of a firearm as a
felon.)
    Before Bell was indicted on any federal charges, a Wiscon-
sin court revoked his extended supervision based in part on
his new possession of firearms. The state court imposed a
two-year term of reimprisonment.
    Later, Bell was indicted in federal court for possession of a
firearm as a felon, 

(g)(1). The indictment al-
leged that because of Bell’s prior drug convictions, he quali-
fied for an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Crim-
inal Act (ACCA), 

(e)(1). Following a bench trial,
the district court found Bell guilty of possessing a firearm as
a felon and determined that he qualified for an enhanced sen-
tence under the ACCA.
   While awaiting sentencing in federal court in May 2024,
Bell completed his term of reimprisonment in Wisconsin. The
parties do not dispute that the state sentence, which did not
involve any term of supervision, was discharged at that time.
No. 24-2198                                                    3

    About one month after the state sentence was discharged,
Bell was sentenced in federal court. The district court calcu-
lated a guidelines range of 210 to 262 months. The district
court concluded that because of Bell’s status as an armed ca-
reer criminal, he was subject to a mandatory minimum sen-
tence of fifteen years.
    At the sentencing hearing, the parties disputed whether
Bell’s two-year state revocation sentence could support an ad-
justment to Bell’s federal prison term below the fifteen-year
mandatory minimum. The district court concluded that it
lacked authority to impose a sentence below the mandatory
minimum. But, the court continued, a sentence of thirteen
years would be more appropriate to account for the two years
Bell already had served on the state revocation sentence. The
court imposed fifteen years’ imprisonment and three years’
supervised release.
    On appeal, Bell asserts that the district court erred in con-
cluding that it lacked authority to impose a sentence below
the fifteen-year statutory minimum to account for the two-
year state revocation sentence he already had completed. Bell
rests his argument on the district court’s statutory authority
to adjust a sentence under 

(a). We review de
novo claims of procedural error in sentencing. United States v.
De La Cruz, 

 (7th Cir. 2018).
    Bell misapprehends the scope of § 3584(a), which applies
to defendants facing “multiple terms of imprisonment” or
“already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment.”
That section gives the district court discretion to impose a con-
current sentence after considering the factors in 

(a), which in turn incorporate the Sentencing Guide-
lines. Under § 3584(a) and § 5G1.3 of the Sentencing
4                                                   No. 24-2198

Guidelines, a district judge may adjust a federal sentence be-
low a statutory mandatory minimum where the defendant is
still serving a related, undischarged state sentence.
See United States v. Campbell, 

 (7th Cir. 2010)
(“[A] district court could impose a sentence below the
§ 924(e)(1) mandatory minimum to account for time served
on a related undischarged sentence, so long as the defendant’s
total period of state and federal imprisonment equaled the
statutory minimum.”); United States v. Hernandez, 

 (7th Cir. 2010) (same for 

(b)(1)(A)).
    A defendant facing federal sentencing who has a prior dis-
charged sentence is in a different position. Section 3584(a)
does not permit a district court to impose a federal sentence
concurrently with an already discharged state sentence, “be-
cause there is no concurrent sentence and cannot be one when
the defendant is no longer ‘subject to an undischarged term
of imprisonment.’” United States v. Cruz, 

 (7th
Cir. 2010) (quoting 

(a)). To be sure, the Sen-
tencing Guidelines permit a district court to consider the dis-
charged term of imprisonment when it imposes a federal sen-
tence. See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.23. But a departure under § 5K2.23
cannot bring a federal sentence below a mandatory minimum
prescribed by statute. See Cruz, 595 F.3d at 746–47.
    Bell mistakenly asserts that U.S.S.G § 5G1.3(b) provides
the only restriction on making a federal term of imprisonment
concurrent to a discharged state term of imprisonment, and
because the Guidelines are advisory, it is not a limit on the
district court’s authority. But the district court’s authority to
determine how two different sentences interact is determined
by § 3584, not the Guidelines. See Campbell, 

.
No. 24-2198                                                   5

     Bell attempts to distinguish the holding in Cruz by con-
trasting the language in 

(b)(1)(A)—the statute
at issue in Cruz—with 

(e)(1). The operative lan-
guage in § 841(b)(1)(A) is that the defendant “shall be sen-
tenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than
10 years,” whereas § 924(e) provides that offenders must be
“imprisoned not less than fifteen years.” In Bell’s view, since
§ 924(e) specifies an aggregate term of imprisonment rather
than any specific sentence, he does not need a federal mini-
mum sentence to be adjusted, departed from, or deemed con-
current to some other sentence. On that theory, § 3584(a) and
its restriction that a state sentence must be “undischarged” is
wholly irrelevant.
    True, some of the language in our case law suggests that
§ 924(e)’s reference to a general term of imprisonment might
afford a district court unique flexibility—when compared to
the specific minimum sentence prescribed by § 841(b)(1)(A)—
in crafting a sentence. See United States v. Ross, 

 (7th Cir. 2000) (noting that § 924(e) “does not specify any
particular way in which that imprisonment should be
achieved”). But we later clarified in Hernandez that the linguis-
tic differences between § 924(e) and § 841(b)(1)(A) were irrel-
evant in determining the scope of the district court’s statutory
authority. 

. Indeed, in Cruz we explained that
“[t]he result in Ross was tied to the undischarged character of
the state sentence” and confirmed that “a discharged sentence
may not be used to reduce a statutory minimum sentence.”
Cruz, 

.
    The government also observes persuasively that any un-
fairness that Bell identifies in the application of § 3584(a) and
§ 5G1.3(b) to his case is mitigated because the discharged state
6                                                  No. 24-2198

sentence was imposed after revocation. To be sure, Bell’s su-
pervision was revoked, in part, because of his possession of
firearms in this case. But the reimprisonment term is tied to
and remains part of the punishment imposed for the
2017 Wisconsin offenses. See State v. Brown, 

 (Wis. 2006) (noting that original sentence sets maximum
period of reconfinement and court cannot impose term ex-
ceeding time remaining on original bifurcated sentence);
see also United States v. Dawson, 

, 1162 (7th Cir.
2020) (recognizing in federal context that purpose of revoca-
tion sentence “is not to punish a defendant’s violation as if it
were a new federal crime, but rather to sanction the defend-
ant’s breach of the court’s trust”). And the conduct leading to
Bell’s 2017 convictions is not relevant conduct for his posses-
sion of firearms in this case. Where a defendant is serving fed-
eral or state probation, parole, or supervised release at the
time of the instant offense and it is revoked, the Guidelines
recommend that the sentence for the instant offense be im-
posed consecutively to the revocation sentence. See U.S.S.G.
§ 5G1.3(d) & cmt. n.4(C).
                                                   AFFIRMED.