DocketNumber： 98-1975
Filed Date： 6/8/1999
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 4/17/2021
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 98-1975 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. ANGEL C. HURTADO-ARAUJO, A/K/A MARCELINO MICOLTA QUINTERO, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge] Before Lynch, Circuit Judge, Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lipez, Circuit Judge. Angel Cecilio Hurtado Araujo on brief pro se. Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michelle Morales, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. June 8, 1999 Per Curiam. Appellant Angel Cecilio Hurtado-Araujo appeals from the denial of his request for a prompt probation- revocation hearing. In that motion, appellant relied solely on the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. See 18 U.S.C. App. Yet that enactment does not apply to detainers based on probation-violation charges. See Carchman v. Nash,473 U.S. 716
(1985). We add that appellant's principal concern--that he will lose the opportunity to be sentenced to a concurrent prison term--is largely misplaced in any event. Although U.S.S.G. 7B1.3(f) calls for a consecutive sentence in this context, that provision is "advisory rather than mandatory." United States v. O'Neil,11 F.3d 292
, 301 n.11 (1st Cir. 1993); accord, e.g., United States v. Throneburg,87 F.3d 851
, 854 (6th Cir. 1996). The possibility of appellant receiving a concurrent sentence once the revocation hearing is held thus cannot be excluded. We of course intimate no view as to the appropriateness of any such sentence. Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1.