When defendant committed the crime, the state statute said that multiple counts would run concurrently unless the court expressly directs otherwise, with reasons stated. When he was sentenced, the statute had been amended to substitute “consecutively” for “concurrently.” The Ninth Circuit found that the imposition of consecutive sentences did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The statute did not create a presumption of consecutive sentences, and the amendment did not change the court’s discretion to choose the more appropriate sentencing.