Lora v. United States

by Supreme Court of the United States

Note: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

LORA v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 22–49. Argued March 28, 2023—Decided June 16, 2023

A federal court imposing multiple prison sentences typically has discretion to run the sentences concurrently or consecutively. See 18 U. S. C. §3584. An exception exists in §924(c), which provides that “no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment.” §924(c)(1)(D)(ii). Here, the Court considers whether §924(c)’s bar on concurrent sentences extends to a sentence imposed under a different subsection, §924(j).

Petitioner Efrain Lora was convicted of the federal crime of aiding and abetting a violation of §924(j)(1), which penalizes “a person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (c), causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm,” where “the killing is a murder.” A violation of subsection (c) occurs when a person “uses or carries a firearm” “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime,” or “possesses a firearm” “in furtherance of any such crime.” §924(c)(1)(A). Lora was also convicted of a second federal crime, conspiring to distribute drugs.

At sentencing, the District Court concluded that it lacked discretion to run the sentences for Lora’s two convictions concurrently, because §924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s bar on concurrent sentences governs §924(j) sentences. The District Court sentenced Lora to consecutive terms of imprisonment for the drug-distribution-conspiracy count and the §924(j) count. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s bar on concurrent sentences does not govern a sentence for a §924(j) conviction. A §924(j) sentence therefore can run either concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence. Pp. 3–10.

(a) Sections 924(c) and 924(j) criminalize the use, carrying, and possession of firearms in connection with certain crimes. Subsection (c) lays out a set of offenses and their corresponding penalties. It also mandates that a “term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection” must run consecutively with other sentences. §924(c)(1)(D)(ii). Subsection (j) likewise lays out offense elements and corresponding penalties. Unlike subsection (c), subsection (j) contains no consecutive-sentence mandate. Pp. 3–4.

(b) Subsection (c)’s consecutive-sentence mandate applies only to the terms of imprisonment prescribed within subsection (c). A sentence imposed under subsection (j) does not qualify. Subsection (j) is located outside subsection (c) and does not call for imposing any sentence from subsection (c). And while subsection (j) references subsection (c), that reference is limited to offense elements, not penalties. Pp. 4–5.

(c) Congress did not, as the Government maintains, incorporate §924(c) as a whole into §924(j) such that a §924(j) defendant faces subsection (j)’s penalties plus subsection (c)’s penalties. Subsection (j) nowhere mentions—let alone incorporates—subsection (c)’s penalties. Moreover, as subsections (c) and (j) are written, a sentencing court cannot always obey both sets of penalties. To avert potential conflict between subsections (c) and (j), the Government points to another provision, §924(c)(5), as a model. But assuming without deciding whether §924(c)(5) operates as the Government says, Congress did not implement that design in subsection (j). Equally unavailing is the Government’s argument that, under double jeopardy principles, a defendant cannot receive both subsection (c) and subsection (j) sentences for the same conduct. That view of double jeopardy can easily be squared with the conclusion that subsection (j) neither incorporates subsection (c)’s penalties nor triggers the consecutive-sentence mandate. Pp. 5–8.

(d) It is not “implausible,” as the Government asserts, for Congress to have imposed the harsh consecutive-sentence mandate under subsection (c) but not subsection (j), which covers more serious offense conduct. That result is consistent with the statute’s design. Unlike subsection (c), subsection (j) generally eschews mandatory penalties in favor of sentencing flexibility. Of a piece, subsection (j) permits flexibility to choose between concurrent and consecutive sentences. Congress chose a different approach to punishment in subsection (j) than in subsection (c), and the Court must implement the design Congress chose. Pp. 8–10.

Vacated and remanded.

Jackson, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

The current edition of this document derives from the electronic version of the "slip opinion" posted online by the Supreme Court of the United States the day the decision was handed down. It is not the final or most authoritative version. It is subject to further revision by the Court and should be replaced with the final edition when it is published in a print volume of the United States Reports. The Court's full disclaimer regarding slip opinions follows:

The "slip" opinion is the second version of an opinion. It is sent to the printer later in the day on which the "bench" opinion is released by the Court. Each slip opinion has the same elements as the bench opinion—majority or plurality opinion, concurrences or dissents, and a prefatory syllabus—but may contain corrections not appearing in the bench opinion. Caution: These electronic opinions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed slip opinion pamphlets. Moreover, a slip opinion is replaced within a few months by a paginated version of the case in the preliminary print, and—one year after the issuance of that print—by the final version of the case in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of a slip opinion, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between the slip opinion and any later official version of the opinion, the later version controls. (source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx)