CASE PREVIEW
on Mar 27, 2023
at 12:50 pm
![](https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Banner191210r.jpg)
The homicide of a Bronx man by his rival in a 2002 drug trafficking scheme has reached the Supreme Courtroom on a seemingly cold challenge: Ought to two associated parts of the Armed Career Criminal Act be handled for sentencing functions as components of a complete, or as an alternative as distinct items?
Efrain Lora was the pinnacle of a cocaine trafficking ring within the Bronx. On August 11, 2002, he and three lieutenants shot and killed Andrew Balcarran, a rival drug seller, in retaliation for Balcarran’s aggression in a turf dispute.
Balcarran’s homicide went unsolved for a decade. However in 2014, Lora was indicted on expenses that he had violated 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1), which states partially that if a defendant “in the midst of a violation of subsection (c), causes the loss of life of an individual via using a firearm,” he “shall be punished by loss of life or by imprisonment for any time period of years or for all times” if “the killing is a homicide …”
The “subsection (c)” referenced on this provision consists of Part 924(c)(1)(A), which supplies that anybody “who, throughout and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime … makes use of or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, along with the punishment offered for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime” obtain a sentence of “not lower than 5 years.”
Collectively, Sections 924(c) and (j) authorize punishment for anybody who furthers a drug trafficking crime whereas utilizing a firearm to commit a homicide. This punishment may very well be along with punishment for the underlying drug and firearm offenses. The same old rule in federal courtroom is that district judges have discretion to run a number of sentences both concurrently or consecutively. Nonetheless, crucial to Lora’s case, Part 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) accommodates a provision particularly prohibiting concurrent sentences: It supplies that “[n]o time period of imprisonment imposed on an individual underneath this subsection shall run concurrently with another time period of imprisonment …” (italics added). Over Lora’s protest that this sentencing rule didn’t apply to him, the district courtroom imposed a 25-year sentence for conspiracy to homicide, to run consecutively with a five-year time period for the firearm conviction.
At its most simple degree, the dispute between Lora and the federal government earlier than the Supreme Courtroom is easy. Lora says that Part 924(c)’s particular ban on concurrent sentences doesn’t apply to him as a result of he wasn’t convicted for utilizing a firearm throughout against the law. Quite, as a result of he was convicted underneath Part 924(j) of killing an individual utilizing a firearm, his sentence wasn’t imposed “underneath this subsection.”
The federal government dismisses Lora’s interpretation as oversimple and absurd, countering that Part 924(j) explicitly incorporates Part 924(c) by reference. Part 924(j) solely exists at the side of Part 924(c), U.S. Solicitor Basic Elizabeth Prelogar tells the justices, they usually subsequently represent the identical subsection for functions of Part 924(c)’s ban on concurrent sentences.
Lora’s temporary begins merely, with a concentrate on the plain textual content of the provisions at challenge in his case. He notes that he was convicted underneath Part 924(j), which says nothing about whether or not sentences could also be run concurrently. Though Part 924(c) prohibits concurrent sentences for punishment underneath “this subsection,” Lora was not convicted underneath “this subsection,” he asserts. That argument, he notes, is supported by the dictionary, which defines “this” as “the factor that’s current or close to in place.” Precedent additionally makes clear, Lora provides, that Part 924(j) isn’t in the identical subsection as Part 924(c)’s ban on concurrent sentences, as a result of “‘subsection’ refers to a subdivision denoted by a decrease case letter (right here, that’s ‘c’).”
However in any occasion, Lora continues, if Congress had needed Part 924(c)’s ban on concurrent sentences to use to Part 924(j), it may merely have referenced convictions “underneath this part” (as an alternative of “underneath this subsection”). Alternatively, Lora observes, it may have listed Part 924(j) explicitly inside Part 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). Not solely did Congress fail to do both of these issues, Lora factors out, it additionally put nothing in subsection (j) that particularly incorporates or makes reference to Part 924(c)’s ban on concurrent sentences.
Lora’s subsequent argument pushes again towards the federal government’s rivalry that Part 924(c) constitutes a lesser-included offense inside Part 924(j), which means that Part 924(j) successfully enumerates nothing greater than a sentencing issue or enhancement (for homicide) atop the important parts laid out on firearm possession in Part 924(c). If Part 924(j) isn’t actually a separate offense from Part 924(c), the federal government causes, then the sentencing rule connected to at least one ought to apply equally to the opposite.
Lora factors to the courtroom’s 2000 resolution in Castillo v. United States, which interpreted the supply in Part 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) offering particular punishments for Part 924(c) crimes involving machineguns. In Castillo, the courtroom concluded that utilizing a machinegun was a definite crime – a holding, Lora argues, that contradicts the federal government’s rivalry that Sections 924(c) and 924(j) impose punishment for a similar offenses.
The federal government’s principal argument is that the textual content and construction of Part 924 show that subsection (c)’s ban on concurrent sentences applies to convictions imposed underneath Part 924(j). First, Part 924(j) explicitly incorporates Part 924(c)’s requirement that the prosecution show the fee of a “crime of violence” or “drug-trafficking” crime. (Part 924(j) then provides the factor of a homicide dedicated in the midst of such crime and authorizes a way more extreme punishment.) Thus, (j) and (c) “work collectively to outline the offense of which Lora was convicted.” As a result of Lora’s conviction underneath Part 924(j) essentially entailed a violation of Part 924(c), the federal government contends, he’s topic to statutory-minimum sentencing underneath each provisions. “Congress integrated Part 924(c) as a complete into Part 924(j),” the federal government concludes.
The federal government additionally argues that Congress didn’t intend (c) and (j) to be handled as separate subsections. “It’s extremely unlikely that Congress, which clearly supposed to impose extra cumulative punishments for utilizing firearms throughout violent crimes in instances the place no homicide happens, would flip round and never intend to impose cumulative punishments … in instances the place there are precise homicide victims,” the federal government asserts.
Lora counters that the plain language of the statute excludes this interpretation, and that, if Congress desires the prohibition on concurrent sentences to increase to (j), it’s for Congress and never the courtroom to say so.
Whereas Lora claims the “plain textual content” of the statute favors him, he additionally factors to an extended widespread legislation custom of district courtroom discretion to run sentences concurrently or consecutively. That custom, he argues, may solely be overcome by a transparent assertion within the statute on the contrary – which exists for convictions imposed underneath Part 924(c), however not for convictions imposed underneath different subsections of Part 924.
The federal government counters that Lora’s “clear assertion” argument assumes its personal conclusion. Lora admits each that (c) accommodates a transparent assertion contradicting the widespread legislation custom of discretion to run sentences concurrently. He admits that this clear assertion applies to convictions imposed underneath (c). But that is without doubt one of the principal points within the case at this stage: Was Lora’s conviction imposed solely underneath (j), or underneath (j) and (c) in conjunction? Thus, in line with the federal government, Lora’s “clear assertion” argument doesn’t present an unbiased cause to rule in his favor, however as an alternative relies on whether or not Lora is appropriate that he was not convicted underneath (c).
Will probably be fascinating to see how the justices who have a tendency towards conservatism in prison instances react to Lora’s “plain textual content” argument. In lots of prison instances, we see the federal government insisting on adhering to the plain textual content of the statute, whereas the defendant is the one interesting to extra sophisticated and nuanced arguments concerning the construction and relationship of statutory provisions.
One other factor to look at for at oral argument is how the justices appear within the authorities’s warning that if the courtroom agrees with Lora that subsections (j) and (c) actually punish separate offenses, future defendants can be topic to what quantities to double punishment for a similar offense. The federal government insists that such an undesirable outcome can solely be averted by construing Part 924(c) because the offense and Part 924(j) as an enhancement for homicide. Will the justices be moved to determine a significant constitutional double jeopardy challenge even when the defendant within the case doesn’t declare he’s being subjected to double jeopardy? We’ll know extra on Tuesday.