United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 06-3564
                                    ___________

United States of America,              *
                                       *
            Appellee,                  *
                                       * Appeal from the United States
      v.                               * District Court for the
                                       * District of Minnesota.
Alberto Zatarain, also known as Beto, *
                                       *      [UNPUBLISHED]
            Appellant.                 *
                                  ___________

                              Submitted: October 2, 2007
                                 Filed: October 10, 2007
                                  ___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

       While he was serving a sentence of 188 months’ imprisonment for a federal
drug-trafficking offense, Alberto Zatarain (Zatarain) contacted his brother and
arranged for the brother to sell drugs to a third person. That person was an undercover
officer, and Zatarain thereafter pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or
more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. The district court1
sentenced Zatarain to 135 months’ imprisonment be served consecutively to the
undischarged 188-month sentence. Zatarain appeals, arguing his sentence is

      1
      The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
unreasonable because application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors support a partially
concurrent sentence.

       After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in imposing a fully consecutive sentence. See United States v. Winston, 

,
867 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The court explicitly and properly considered
the seriousness of the offense, Zatarain’s failure to be deterred by his previous 188-
month sentence, and the fact Zatarain committed the instant offense while in custody
for a similar offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)-(b) (declaring when a term of
imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged
term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively; in
determining whether to impose the terms consecutively or concurrently, a court shall
consider § 3553(a) factors); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (nature and circumstances of
offense and history and characteristics of defendant), (2)(A) (seriousness of offense),
(2)(B) (adequate deterrence); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a) (requiring consecutive sentence
where offense was committed while serving term of imprisonment on another
offense); 

(affirming a sentence where the district court
explained its decision to run sentence consecutively and cited § 3553(a) factors).

      For these reasons, we affirm.
                      ______________________________




                                          -2-