MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant Kingsley Osemwengie appeals from a 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Osemwengie first argues that the revocation of his supervised release was invalid because the new violations occurred before the revocation period began to run. This argument is simply factually incorrect: at the supervised release revocation hearing, Osemwengie specifically admitted that he committed new violations during the term of his supervised release.

Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the 12-month sentence to be served consecutively to a previously imposed sentence by a federal district court in Oregon. The Oregon district court had been aware of the pending revocation proceeding against Osemwengie and stated that it intended its sentence to be served concurrently with the not-yet-imposed Nevada sentence. We have repeatedly stated, however, that “federal courts ‘cannot order a sentence to run either concurrently or consecutively to a non-existent term.’” Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Taylor v. Sawyer, 284 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States v. Montes-Ruiz, 745 F.3d 1286, 1292-94 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that the Taylor/Reynolds rule still applies to prospective federal sentences following Setser v. United States, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 1468, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012)). Thus, the Nevada district court here was in no way required to follow the wishes of the Oregon district court and did not abuse its discretion when it refused to do so.

AFFIRMED.