Source: http://blog.federaldefendersny.org/category/924c/page/3/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:14:36+00:00

Document:
The defendant here received a 120-month drug sentence and a consecutive 60-month § 924(c) sentence. On appeal, he argued that this was illegal under the court’s decisions in Williams and Whitley. And indeed it was. However, as this decision recognizes, those cases were abrogated by the Supreme Court in Abbot v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 18 (2010).
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) makes it a crime to possess a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Here, the defendants challenged the applicability of this section in their case, where they purchased firearms using drugs as payment.
The trial evidence showed that the defendants acquired two firearms and paid for them with drugs, specifically an “onion” – one ounce of crack cocaine. They instructed the gun seller to sell the crack and give them $200 – the difference between the value of the drugs and that of the guns.
Travious Parker received a 180-month sentence after a jury trial. This sentence comprised a 120-month drug mandatory minimum and mandatory sixty-month consecutive sentence on a § 924(c) count. On appeal, he argued that under United States v. Williams, 558 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2009) and United States v. Whitley, 529 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2008), he was ineligible for the § 924(c) sentence. The circuit affirmed, because conduct underlying the drug count that carried the ten-year mandatory minimum and that underlying the § 924(c) count occurred on different dates.
Jaime Chavez was convicted after a jury trial of a drug conspiracy and a § 924(c) offense, and faced a 50-year mandatory minimum: due to a prior conviction there was a 20-year minimum on the drug charge; and, because the gun had a silencer, he faced a 30-year mandatory consecutive sentence for the gun. The guidelines recommended a minimum sentence of 60 years; 30 for the drugs plus 30 for the gun, and the district court sentenced him to 55 years.
This prosecution arose from a murderous rivalry between two drug gangs. One, the “Cream Team” (footnote 1 of the opinion, which explains the derivation of this name, is a must-read), was populated largely by the defendants on trial. The rival gang sold drugs out of a neighboring building, and was run by a dealer named Yanni. The appeal raised two issues of first impression relating to jury instructions in homicide cases. The court affirmed on those issues, but one defendant won a partial resentencing.

References: § 924
 v. 
 § 924
 § 924
 v. 
 v. 
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924