Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-49_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

LORA v. UNITED STATES 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 22–49.  Argued March 28, 2023—Decided June 16, 2023 

A federal court imposing multiple prison sentences typically has discre-
tion to run the sentences concurrently or consecutively.  See 18 U. S. C. 
§3584.  An exception exists in §924(c), which provides that “no term of 
imprisonment  imposed  on  a  person  under  this  subsection  shall  run 
concurrently with any other term of imprisonment.”  §924(c)(1)(D)(ii). 
Here,  the  Court  considers  whether  §924(c)’s  bar  on  concurrent  sen-
tences  extends  to  a  sentence  imposed  under  a  different  subsection, 
§924(j).  

Petitioner Efrain Lora was convicted of the federal crime of aiding 
and abetting a violation of §924(j)(1), which penalizes “a person who, 
in the course of a violation of subsection (c), causes the death of a per-
son through the use of a firearm,” where “the killing is a murder.”  A 
violation of subsection (c) occurs when a person “uses or carries a fire-
arm” “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug traffick-
ing crime,” or “possesses a firearm” “in furtherance of any such crime.”
§924(c)(1)(A).  Lora was also convicted of a second federal crime, con-
spiring to distribute drugs.

At sentencing, the District Court concluded that it lacked discretion 
to run the sentences for Lora’s two convictions concurrently, because 
§924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s  bar  on  concurrent  sentences  governs  §924(j)  sen-
tences.  The District Court sentenced Lora to consecutive terms of im-
prisonment for the drug-distribution-conspiracy count and the §924(j) 
count.  The Court of Appeals affirmed.   

Held: Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s bar on concurrent sentences does not gov-
ern  a  sentence  for  a  §924(j)  conviction.   A  §924(j)  sentence  therefore 
can run either concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence. 
Pp. 3–10.