In a slip opinion on Friday, the US Supreme Court docket declared {that a} federal sentencing legislation provides district courts discretion to impose both concurrent or consecutive sentences for sure drug-related crimes. The case is an attraction from the US Court docket of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Justice Ketanji Brown authored the unanimous opinion. The Court docket dominated that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)‘s ban on concurrent sentences doesn’t apply to offenses below 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) and that district courts have discretion to run sentences below them consecutively or concurrently. The Court docket famous that (j) doesn’t point out or incorporate the penalties in (c). Moreover, the Court docket famous that combining the subsections would set them on a “collision course.” The Court docket vacated the judgment of the appeals court docket and remanded the case for additional proceedings.
The petitioner was convicted in district court docket for his position in a drug-related homicide and conspiring to distribute medication. The district court docket held that it didn’t have discretion to make his sentences consecutive or concurrent due to § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s bar. The appeals court docket affirmed this determination.
Source / Picture: jurist.org
