Jump to content

Page:Lora v. United States.pdf/1

From Wikisource
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
(Slip Opinion)
OCTOBER TERM, 2022
1

Syllabus

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.