Barrett v. United States · ¶13

Textually, the court pointed to §924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s mandate that a subsection (c) sentence must run consecutively to any other sentence—including, the court reasoned, to one under subsection (j). Id., at 90–91. Practically, the court highlighted that a contrary ruling would permit defendants who commit especially serious subsection (c) offenses—ones resulting in death—to escape subsection (c)’s mandatory minimums, despite “Congress’s intent for every defendant convicted under that statute . . . to be incarcerated for no less than the stated minimum term.” Id., at 90; see also id., at 93–94. And, turning to precedent, the court perceived our statement in Lora that subsection (j) evinced a “‘different approach to punishment’” than subsection (c) to establish that the two provisions define different offenses raising no double jeopardy concerns. 102 F. 4th, at 92–93 (quoting 599 U. S., at…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.