Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-49_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

2 

LORA v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

through the use of a firearm,” where “the killing is a mur-
der.”  See also §2(a) (an aider and abettor is punishable “as
a principal”).  Lora was also convicted of conspiring to dis-
tribute drugs, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§841 and 846. 

At  sentencing,  the  District  Court  rejected  two  of  Lora’s
arguments  about  his  §924(j)  conviction.    Most  pertinent
here, Lora argued that the District Court had discretion to
run  the  §924(j)  sentence  concurrently  with  the  drug-
distribution-conspiracy sentence.  The District Court held 
it  lacked  such  discretion.    Applying  Circuit  precedent,  it
held  that  §924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s  bar  on  concurrent  sentences 
governs  §924(j)  sentences,  such  that  Lora’s  two  sentences 
had to run consecutively.  See United States v. Barrett, 937 
F. 3d 126,  129, n. 2 (CA2 2019).   Lora also argued that  a 
§924(j) conviction is not subject to the mandatory minimum 
sentences specified in §924(c).  Disagreeing once again, the 
District  Court  applied  the  five-year  mandatory  minimum
under §924(c)(1)(A) to Lora’s sentencing calculation. 

The District Court ultimately sentenced Lora to 30 years 
of  imprisonment:  25  years  on  the  drug-distribution-
conspiracy  count  and—consecutively—five  years  on  the
§924(j)  count.  Lora  also  received  five  years  of  supervised 
release. 

The Court of Appeals affirmed, adhering to its precedent 
barring  §924(j)  sentences  from  running  concurrently  with
other sentences.  That decision reinforced a conflict among
the  Courts  of  Appeals  over  whether  §924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s 
concurrent-sentence  bar  governs  §924(j)  sentences.1   We 
granted  certiorari  to  resolve  the  conflict.  598  U. S.  ___ 
(2022). 

—————— 

1 Compare,  e.g.,  Barrett,  937  F.  3d,  at  129,  n.  2  (§924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s 
concurrent-sentence bar governs §924(j) sentences); United States v. Ber-
rios, 676 F. 3d 118, 140–144 (CA3 2012); United States v. Bran, 776 F. 3d 
276, 280–282 (CA4 2015); and United States v. Dinwiddie, 618 F. 3d 821, 
837 (CA8 2010), with United States v. Julian, 633 F. 3d 1250, 1252–1257 
(CA11 2011) (it does not).