U.S. v. Dooley

Dist. Ct. erred in sentencing defendant to 96-month term of incarceration on charges of fraud and aggravated identity theft where sentences of three counts of aggravated identity theft called for specific 2-year sentence that could be served either concurrently or consecutively with other two counts of same offense, and where Dist. Ct. failed to specify whether sentences for three counts of aggravated identity theft should be served either concurrently or consecutively. On remand, Dist. Ct. could still require that defendant serve consecutive sentences for all three counts of aggravated identity theft, and that said sentences be served consecutively to sentences for fraud.