Lora v. United States

Last updated

Lora v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 28, 2023
Decided June 16, 2023
Full case nameEfrain Lora v. United States
Docket no. 22-49
Citations599 U.S. 453 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Questions presented
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(D)(ii), which provides that "no term of imprisonment imposed ... under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment," is triggered when a defendant is convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j).
Holding
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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinion
MajorityJackson, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
18 U.S.C.   § 924

Lora v. United States, 599 U.S. 453 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding Title 18 of the United States Code, the main federal criminal code of the United States. The Court held that a provision of one subsection of Title 18 barring concurrent sentences does not govern sentences pursuant to a different part of the same section. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

Efrain Lora was a drug trafficker in the Bronx. In 2002, Lora and his associates, including Oscar Palmer, conspired to kill a rival trafficker who had threatened to kill Palmer. Palmer, along with a fellow associate, were driven to the house of the rival trafficker and subsequently killed him. Over ten years later, federal prosecutors indicted Lora and his associates in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) for possessing or using a firearm "during and in relation to, and in furtherance of, a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and … us[ing] the firearm to cause the death” of a person. Additionally, Lora was indicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and 848(e)(1)(A) for conspiring to traffic drugs and for causing a homicide in furtherance of that conspiracy.

At trial, Lora was found guilty on all counts. However, the judge vacated the § 848 charge due to insufficient evidence proving the quantity of drugs. At sentencing, the judge insisted that § 924(j) requires that the sentences for the remaining charges be served consecutively. The District Court ultimately sentenced Lora to 30 years of imprisonment: 25 years on the drug-distribution-conspiracy count and, consecutively, five years on the § 924(j) count. Lora also received five years of supervised release. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, which had established a precedent in its case law that 924(j) "incorporates the entirety of [subsection 924(c)],” including the bar on consecutive sentences at § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). [1]

Supreme Court

On July 15, 2022, Lora petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case. On December 9, 2022, the Court granted certiorari. Oral arguments were held on March 28, 2023. On June 16, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Second Circuit's judgment and remanded.

In an opinion authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Court held that Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)'s bar on concurrent sentences does not govern a sentence for a § 924(j) conviction. Lora's sentence could therefore run concurrently or consecutively with another sentence.

Sections 924(c) and 924(j), Jackson points out, criminalize the use, carrying, and possession of firearms in connection with certain crimes. Subsections (c) and (j) both describe different offenses and their corresponding penalties. However, subsection (c) contains a provision requiring consecutive sentences, while subsection (j) does not. Subsection (c)'s mandate does not apply to crimes existing wholly outside of it in subsection (j). Additionally, Jackson argues, Congress did not intend to incorporate § 924(c) as a whole into § 924(j). She points out that the crimes outlined in subsection (c) defines more serious offenses than subsection (j), and therefore that one subsection having more harsh sentence requirements than another is plausible. [1]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act</span> US federal law

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted criminals are to remain in prison for the rest of their natural lives. Crimes that warrant life imprisonment are extremely serious and usually violent. Examples of these crimes are murder, torture, terrorism, child abuse resulting in death, rape, espionage, treason, illegal drug trade, human trafficking, severe fraud and financial crimes, aggravated property damage, arson, hate crime, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, theft, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and genocide.

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit to the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, the plan itself is the crime, so there is no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect. For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.

George Enrique Herbert is a Belizean gang leader and drug trafficker who worked with Mexican and Colombian drug cartels to distribute controlled drugs in Belize and the United States. He was convicted by a jury in Manhattan federal court on December 14, 2004 on multiple cocaine importation charges. He is married and has one child.

October Martinique Lewis was a member of a terrorist group dubbed the Portland Seven, some members of which attempted to travel to Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 in order to aid the Taliban. Lewis was sentenced to three years in federal prison after cooperating with the government and pleading guilty to six counts of money laundering. Lewis admitted to transferring money abroad to Jeffrey Leon Battle, her ex-husband, in order to assist him in his efforts to aid the Taliban.

Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court interpreted a frequently used section of the federal criminal code. At the time of the decision, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) imposed a mandatory, consecutive five-year prison term on anyone who "during and in relation to any... drug trafficking crime... uses a firearm." The lower court had sustained the defendants' convictions, defining "use" in such a way as to mean little more than mere possession. The Supreme Court ruled instead that "use" means "active employment" of a firearm, and sent the cases back to the lower court for further proceedings. As a result of the Court's decision in Bailey, Congress amended the statute to expressly include possession of a firearm as requiring the additional five-year prison term.

Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that filled in an important gap in the federal criminal law of sentencing. The federal criminal code does not contain a definition of many crimes, including burglary, the crime at issue in this case. Yet sentencing enhancements applicable to federal crimes allow for the enhancement of a defendant's sentence if he has been convicted of prior felonies. The Court addressed in this case how "burglary" should be defined for purposes of such sentencing enhancements when the federal criminal code contained no definition of "burglary." The approach the Court adopted in this case has guided the lower federal courts in interpreting other provisions of the criminal code that also refer to generic crimes not otherwise defined in federal law.

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court confirmed that federal district judges utilize, in an advisory fashion, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, in cases involving conduct related to possession, distribution, and manufacture of crack cocaine.

Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a federal appeals court may not sua sponte increase a defendant's sentence unless the government first files a notice of appeal.

Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the exchange of a gun for drugs constituted "use" of the firearm for purposes of a federal statute imposing penalties for "use" of a firearm "during and in relation to" a drug trafficking crime.

Weldon Angelos is a music producer who was sentenced in a high profile marijuana case involving mandatory minimum sentences that was presented to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case but Angelos was later released from prison 13 years later due to public pressure from celebrities, United States Senators, the judge that sentenced him, and ultimately the prosecutor who prosecuted him.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Armed Career Criminal Act</span> 1984 United States federal law

The Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA) is a United States federal law that provides sentence enhancements for felons who commit crimes with firearms if they are convicted of certain crimes three or more times. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter was a key proponent for the legislation.

Raymond Alvin Jackson is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568 (2009), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court upholding a 10-year penalty for the discharge of a firearm during the commission of any violent or drug trafficking crime, against a bank robber whose gun went off accidentally.

The Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute is a United States federal law that targets large-scale drug traffickers who are responsible for long-term and elaborate drug conspiracies. Unlike the RICO Act, which covers a wide range of organized crime enterprises, the CCE statute covers only major narcotics organizations. CCE is codified as Chapter 13 of Title 21 of the United States Code, 21 U.S.C. § 848. The statute makes it a federal crime to commit or conspire to commit a continuing series of felony violations of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 when such acts are taken in concert with five or more other persons. For conviction under the statute, the offender must have been an organizer, manager, or supervisor of the continuing operation and have obtained substantial income or resources from the drug violations.

Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8 (2010), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed the mandatory sentencing increase under federal law for the possession or use of a deadly weapon in drug trafficking and violent crimes. In an 8–0 decision, the Court ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which required a minimum five-year prison sentence, was to be imposed in addition to any other mandatory sentence given for another crime, including the underlying drug-related or violent offense. The only exception to the five-year addition applied only when another provision required a longer mandatory term for conduct violating §924(c) specifically, rather than a mandatory sentence for another crime as the defendants had unsuccessfully argued.

Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case focusing on legislative interpretation of a firearms chapter of the federal criminal code. The Court was asked to rule on whether a particular statute with the phrase “carries a firearm” should be interpreted so as to be limited to carrying a firearm only on one’s person or interpreted more broadly to include carrying a firearm in a vehicle. The Court held that the statute should be construed broadly and that a firearm discovered in a vehicle, including the glove compartment and trunk, would constitute as “carrying” under the statute.

The Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act was a bill proposed to the 112th United States Congress in 2011. It was introduced to amend Section 846 of the Controlled Substances Act to close a loophole that has allowed many drug trafficking conspirators to avoid federal prosecution. The Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act would have made it a federal crime for persons who conspire on United States soil to traffic or aid and abet drug trafficking inside or even outside the borders of the United States. This Act was created to provide clarity to current laws within the United States and provide criminal prosecution of those who are involved in drug trafficking within the United States or outside its borders. This Act would have provided a borderless application to United States Law and extends possible criminal charges to all individuals involved in the drug transport. The bill passed the House but was not acted upon by the Senate and thus died.

Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the decision in Johnson v. United States announced a substantive rule change and is therefore retroactive.

Brown v. United States,, is a United States Supreme Court case about the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Supreme Court affirmed both courts of appeals, holding that a state drug conviction counts as an ACCA predicate if it involved a drug on the federal schedules at the time of that conviction.

References

  1. 1 2 3 599 U.S. ___(2023)
  2. ↑ "Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Criminal Defendants". Newsweek. June 16, 2023. Retrieved June 16, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.