Barrett v. United States · ¶62
What Batchelder is to Ball, Lora is to this case. Subsection (j) shares subsection (c)'s elements but not its sentencing scheme. See Lora, 599 U. S., at 458–459. “Instead, subsection (j) supplies its own comprehensive set of penalties that apply instead of subsection (c)'s.” Id., at 460. And as in Ball, this dynamic magnifes (rather than eliminates) the likelihood that the Blockburger presumption holds true. After all, if offenses that share elements—as they must to satisfy Blockburger—have penalties that operate on their own rather than by reference to each other, see Batchelder, 442 U. S., at 118–121; Lora, 599 U. S., at 458–459, that suggests Congress intended to place in front of prosecutors a menu, not a buffet. Accord, Jeffers v. United States, 432 U. S. 137, 156–157 (1977) (plurality opinion) (one provision's “comprehensive penalty structure” indicated that it was not intended to…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.