Barrett v. United States · ¶52

In our search for congressional intent, we might in some circumstances think that when two provisions focus on entirely “different interests,” that suggests Congress intended them to accumulate rather than swap out. See United States v. Dixon, 509 U. S. 688, 724 (1993) (White, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); see also Albernaz, 450 U. S., at 343 (observing that the Court's conclusion about the permissibility of dual convictions was “reinforced by the fact that the two . . . statutes are directed to separate evils”). Whatever those circumstances, this is not one. Amicus stretches to find a common thread running throughout subsection (c)(1)—he bundles frearm use, frearm type, and recidivism and places them in opposition to harm. But it is not obvious that those three features form a theme of any significance such that they can create the contrast amicus wants to…

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