Skip to content
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Consumer Protection
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Find My AG
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Member Benefits
  • Contact Us
Log In
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Consumer Protection
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us

Supreme Court Report: Lora v. United States, 22-49

Home / Supreme Court / Supreme Court Report: Lora v. United States, 22-49
December 14, 2022 Supreme Court
Share this

  • Dan Schweitzer
    Director, Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
    National Association of Attorneys General

Volume 30, Issue 3

This Report summarizes cases granted review on November 21 and December 1 and 9, 2022 (Part I).

Case Granted Review: Lora v. United States, 22-49

Lora v. United States, 22-49. At issue is “[w]hether 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(D)(ii), which provides that ‘no term of imprisonment imposed . . . under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment,’ is triggered when a defendant is convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C. §924(j).” As relevant here, Section 924(c) prohibits using or carrying a firearm during or in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, as well as possessing a firearm in furtherance of such a crime. That offense carries a five-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(i). Meanwhile, other provisions of subsection (c) set forth factual elements that correspond to higher mandatory minimum terms. Section 924(c) also contains a limited prohibition on concurrent sentencing. It provides that “no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person.” Id. §924(c)(1)(D)(ii) (emphasis added). Meanwhile, Section 924(j) prohibits “caus[ing] the death of a person through the use of a firearm” while violating Section 924(c). If the killing constitutes a murder under federal law, Section 924(j) authorizes imposing the death penalty or any term of imprisonment.

Petitioner and three co-conspirators trafficked cocaine and cocaine base in the Bronx. On August 11, 2002, the group murdered Andrew Balcarran, a rival drug dealer, over a dispute about drug territory. A jury convicted petitioner of, among other things, aiding and abetting the use of a firearm, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, that causes death to another, in violation of Section 924(j). The district court stated that it had to impose “mandatory consecutive” sentences and so imposed a five-year term of imprisonment for petitioner’s conviction under Section 924(j) to run consecutively with a 25-year sentence on the remaining counts. Petitioner appealed, arguing that Section 924(j) does not require a court to impose a consecutive sentence under Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). The Second Circuit affirmed, relying on circuit precedent. 2022 WL 453368. That precedent reasoned that Section 924(j) “incorporates the entirety of [Section 924(c)],” including the bar on concurrent sentences in Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii).

Petitioner argues that the circuits are divided 5-2 on the issue, with the Second Circuit in the majority. On the merits, he maintains that “familiar tools of statutory interpretation confirm that a conviction under Section 924(j) does not count as a conviction under Section 924(c).” The Court had previously held that the word “subsection” generally refers to a subdivision denoted by a lower-case letter. Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh, 543 U.S. 50, 60–61 (2004). And “[w]hen Congress amended Section 924 in 1994 to add what is now subsection (j), Congress chose to create a ‘new subsection’ ‘at the end’ of the Section, rather than to locate the provision within (i.e., under) Section 924(c).” Petitioner also insists that “the fact that Sections 924(j) and 924(c) are discrete offenses under this Court’s precedent” means that “the treatment of Section 924(j) as an offense ‘under’ Section 924(c) can lead to constitutional issues and therefore should be avoided.” He notes that in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), the Court held that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime is an “element” of the crime, not a sentencing factor, and must be submitted to the jury. “Alleyne,” he writes, “confirms that Section 924(j) defines a discrete offense (that must be submitted to a jury)”―and “[b]ecause Section 924(j) establishes a separate offense from those found in Section 924(c), [petitioner’s] conviction under Section 924(j) can only be punished under Section 924(j), not under Section 924(c).”

The United State responds that Section 924(j) merely “sets forth an aggravated version of the offense established under Section 924(c).” “Thus,” reasons the United States, “in order to obtain a conviction under Section 924(j)(1), the government must prove that the defendant’s conduct satisfied the elements listed in Section 924(c) and that a person was murdered in the course of the Section 924(c) violation. And because Sections 924(c) and (j) work together to identify the necessary elements, a sentence based on those elements arises ‘under’ both provisions[.]” Pointing to what constitutes a separate offense for double jeopardy purposes, the United States adds that “Section 924(c) does not require proof of any element distinct from Section 924(j), and there is no countervailing indication that Congress intended to create two distinct, separately punishable offenses.” And the United States maintains that “[a] contrary reading of Section 924 would create an anomaly, under which the lesser-included offense set forth in Section 924(c) would require a consecutive sentence, but additional proof of homicide would eliminate that requirement.”

Editor’s note:  Some of the language in the background sections of the summaries below was taken from the petitions for writ of certiorari and briefs in opposition.

Related Posts

Related Posts

Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 20

Supreme Court Report, Volume 32, Issue 6

Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 15

Connect with NAAG and the Attorney General Community

Create a NAAG account to subscribe to our newsletters or mailing lists.

Create Account
Subscribe
Marble columns and the top of a federal building

scroll to filters

White Logo for the National Association of Attorneys General

1850 M Street NW
12th floor
Washington, DC 20036

TEL 202-326-6000
EMAIL 

Youtube
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Consumer Protection
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us
  • Find My AG
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Member Benefits
  • Contact Us
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy & Cookies Notice
  • Sitemap
  • Member Login

About the National Association of Attorneys General

As the nonpartisan national forum for America's state and territory attorneys general and their staff, NAAG provides collaboration, insight, and expertise to empower and champion America's attorneys general.
Learn More

© 2025 Copyright National Association of Attorneys General

Website by Yoko Co

Internal Feedback / Report an Error

Request an Update / Report an Error

The change you are requesting will be linked to this page. The URL for the page will be included in a hidden field when the form is submitted.
Please enter your change or describe your request. Be sure to reference where the error appears on the page and what needs to be done specifically.
Upload any files that need to be linked to this page. PDF only. Submit another request if you have more than five files to upload.
Drop files here or
Accepted file types: pdf, docx, xls, Max. file size: 128 MB, Max. files: 5.

    Who is requesting this change?(Required)

    Scroll To Top

    Insert/edit link

    Enter the destination URL

    Or link to existing content

      No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.
        To provide you more clarity about how we collect, store and use personal information, and your rights to control that information, we have updated our privacy policy, which also explains how we use cookies. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.I Agree