Defendant Anthony Lamont Holmes appeals his conviction of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(1). The issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence to defendant's state sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Secs. 3584 and 3553(a), when the prosecution agreed not to oppose a concurrent sentence. For reasons stated herein, we affirm.

On October 3, 1990, defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property exceeding $200 in value in state court. On May 19, 1991, defendant entered a television repair store operated as a storefront sting by the Knoxville, Tennessee, Police Department for the purpose of purchasing stolen property and contraband and videotaping the transactions. After entering the store, defendant sold a .38 caliber revolver for $100. On May 20, 1991, defendant returned and sold a .308 caliber rifle for $300. Defendant's state sentences were also a result of bringing stolen items to this store. Defendant agreed to plead guilty, and the government agreed not to oppose the imposition of a sentence concurrent with time defendant was serving on the state charges. The district court sentenced defendant to 24-months imprisonment to run consecutively to his unexpired state sentence.

Defendant argues that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to a consecutive sentence, even though he concedes that the court had discretion to impose a consecutive sentence with an unexpired state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3584; see also United States v. Colbert, 977 F.2d 203, 207 (6th Cir.1992). In addition, a district court may impose a federal sentence to run consecutively with an anticipated state sentence. United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2034 (1991). When determining whether to impose a consecutive sentence, the court must consider the factors set forth in Sec. 3553(a). See Colbert, 977 F.2d at 207.

The district court considered the Sec. 3553(a) factors, finding that: (1) defendant had, for his age of 22, one of the longest records it had ever seen, having received sentences as an adult on twelve separate convictions in a four-year period; (2) defendant had not been deterred by the previous sentences, and in fact was on parole at the time he committed the instant offense; (3) the public needed to be protected from further crimes; and (4) it was necessary to provide respect for the law and just punishment. In addition, the court analyzed: (1) whether the court possessed discretion to order either concurrent or consecutive sentences; (2) how much time defendant would serve in the state system under his state sentences; and (3) defendant's overall criminal history profile to determine whether a deterrent theory of punishment was effective. There was no abuse of discretion by the district court.

AFFIRMED.