Barrett v. United States · ¶49

This description is not merely the law as it exists; it is the law as Congress understands it. When Congress amended subsection (c) in 1971, it added two distinct instructions, as recited above. The first—that a subsection (c)(1) conviction must be “in addition to the punishment provided for” the predicate—answers the threshold question: May one act spawn two convictions, one for subsection (c)(1) and one for the predicate? The second—the consecutive-sentence mandate—answers the follow-on question: Presuming the existence of two convictions, should their resulting sentences run concurrently or consecutively? Cf. Dean v. United States, 581 U. S. 62, 69–70 (2017) (describing these provisions as “two” distinct “limitations”). Amicus would have the second instruction answer the first question. But Congress has already addressed it: A subsection (c)(1) conviction adds to the predicate…

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