Lora v. United States
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Lora v. United States and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Lora v. United States.
The Supreme Court ruled that the bar on concurrent sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) does not apply to sentences under § 924(j). This allows for sentences under § 924(j) to be either concurrent or consecutive. The decision vacated the lower court's ruling and remanded the case.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Lora v. United States.
The Court held that Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)'s bar on concurrent sentences does not govern a sentence for a § 924(j) conviction.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Lora v. United States. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Double Jeopardy is relevant to Lora v. United States
The Court addresses the Government's argument regarding double jeopardy principles in relation to sentencing under different subsections.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Equally unavailing is the Government's argument that, under double jeopardy principles, a defendant cannot receive both subsection (c) and subsection (j) sentences for the same conduct.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Lora v. United States that support the summary and concepts above.
Subsection (j) contains no consecutive-sentence mandate.
A § 924(j) sentence therefore can run either concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence.
Congress chose a different approach to punishment in subsection (j) than in subsection (c).
