In what circumstances will a defendant receive a concurrent sentence for distribution of a sample and possession with intent to distribute the remainder of the sample?

We distinguished the facts in Palafox from other instances which might merit separate punishments such as where drug transactions occur on separate dates, sales are made from a single package to different individuals or when sales occur in different locations. Id., at 563. We also specifically contrasted the facts in Palafox to the facts in Mehrmanesh. Id., at 559. We rejected the holding in Mehrmanesh only "insofar as Mehrmanesh held that one involved in an ultimate distribution is always separately punishable for a preceding sample distribution." Palafox, 764 F.2d at 563. Our subsequent decisions have also reflected this narrow interpretation of Palafox. See e.g. United States v. Fernandez-Angulo, 863 F.2d 1449, 1455 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that dual punishment may be imposed whenever possession charge arises from any action other than passive momentary retention of drugs following distribution of sample), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 897 F.2d 1514 (9th Cir.1990) (en banc); and United States v. Rodriguez-Ramirez, 777 F.2d 454, 457-8 (9th Cir.1985) (upholding separate concurrent sentences for distribution of sample and possession with intent to distribute remainder where acts occurred two days apart).