Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-49_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

10 

LORA v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

scheme at issue here differently.  It could have mandated 
harsher punishment under subsection (j) than under sub-
section  (c).  It  could  have  added  a  consecutive-sentence 
mandate to subsection (j).  It could have written subsection 
(c)’s consecutive-sentence mandate more broadly.  It could 
have placed subsection (j) within subsection (c).6 

But  Congress  did  not  do  any  of  these  things.    And  we 

must implement the design Congress chose. 

* 

* 

* 

the 

Because 

consecutive-sentence  mandate 

in 
§924(c)(1)(D)(ii) does not govern §924(j) sentences, the Dis-
trict Court had discretion to impose Lora’s §924(j) sentence
concurrently  with  another  sentence.    We  vacate  the  judg-
ment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for fur-
ther proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

—————— 

6 Congress  specifically  considered  and  rejected  that  last  possibility. 
The 1994 Congress had before it a proposal to add, within subsection (c),
a provision authorizing the death penalty when a subsection (c) violation
results in homicide.  See 140 Cong. Rec. 11165, 24066.  Congress rejected
that option and enacted a different version of that crime bill—which cre-
ated subsection (j).