Barrett v. United States · ¶35

All involved in this case share common ground as to the first step of the analysis. The Court of Appeals, Barrett, the Government, and Court-appointed amicus agree that §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and §924(j) define the same offense.After all, the relationship between subsection (c)(1)(A)(i) and subsection (j) is “the classic relation of the `lesser included offense' to the greater offense,” wherein “[t]he very same conduct” violates two statutes, one which is fully subsumed within the other. Garrett, 471 U. S., at 787. And all lesser included offenses are the “same” as their greater cousins under Blockburger. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224, 231 (1998) (“[T]he federal courts have [long] presumed that Congress does not intend for a defendant to be cumulatively punished for two crimes where one crime is a lesser included offense of the other”).

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