Barrett v. United States · ¶14

Then we decided Lora v. United States, 599 U. S. 453 (2023), which, like this case, addressed the relationship between subsections (c) and (j). Lora held that subsection (j) does not incorporate subsection (c)'s consecutive-sentence mandate. That mandate requires a subsection (c) sentence to run consecutively to “any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person.” § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). It does not, we held in Lora, require the same of a subsection (j) sentence. Id., at 459. When the District Court sentenced Barrett in this case, it had been under the opposite impression. So Barrett appealed again, and, bound by Lora, the Second Circuit vacated Barrett's sentence and remanded for another resentencing. 102 F. 4th 60, 85–88 (2024).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.