Barrett v. United States · ¶15

In doing so, the Court of Appeals also passed upon the question that now comes before us. The District Court, recall, had declined to sentence Barrett separately on counts six (under subsection (c)) and seven (under subsection (j)), both of which had as their predicate the same fatal Dafalla robbery charged in count five. The Court of Appeals rejected Barrett's argument that the Double Jeopardy Clause required the District Court to stay that course when the case returned for resentencing. The Court of Appeals did acknowledge that the Government regularly concedes that subsection (c)(1) and subsection (j) overlap and may not be punished cumulatively—a proposition with which the other circuits regularly agree. Id., at 91, and n. 29 (collecting cases). And it recognized that the two provisions qualify as the same offense under the governing test laid out in Block- burger. 102 F. 4th, at…

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