Source: http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191121_0001581.NIN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-01-29 17:56:13
Document Index: 300877686

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 924', '§ 841', '§ 922', '§ 931', '§ 5841', '§ 924', '§ 856', 'art,\n18', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924']

On November 12, 2019, this Court held a Telephonic Sentencing Status Conference during which the Court addressed Defendant's objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (ECF No. 128). The Court's rulings on those objections, as set forth in ECF No. 140, remain undisturbed. The Court writes today for the purpose of expounding upon its basis for sustaining Defendant's objection to paragraph 200 in the original draft Presentence Investigation Report, which determined that Defendant's sentences on Counts 6s and 7s, both under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), should run consecutively.
By way of background, Defendant was convicted by a jury on August 9, 2019, on all counts of an eight-count superseding indictment. Counts 1s and 2s alleged that Defendant possessed with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Count 3s alleged that Defendant was a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Count 4s alleged that Defendant was a felon in possession of body armor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 931(a)(1). Count 5s alleged that Defendant possessed an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5841. Counts 6s and 7s alleged that Defendant possessed firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, a short-barreled rifle and a bomb, respectively, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Finally, Count 8s alleged that Defendant maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing and distributing controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1).
It is important to note that Counts 1s and 2s are related. The only substantive distinction between the two, other than the amounts of controlled substances, is that Count 1s alleges possession in Defendant's home while Count 2s alleges possession in Defendant's vehicle. The Government has never argued that these counts arose out of separate drug operations or activities. Instead, the counts arose out of conduct that was continuous and ongoing in nature, such that Counts 1s and 2s have been grouped for the purposes of sentencing. (ECF No. 142 at 25, ¶ 106). Therefore, the Government alleged, and proved, only one underlying drug trafficking crime.
Section 924(c) states, in relevant part,
18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Since Defendant's § 924(c) convictions arise out of the possession of a short-barreled rifle and a bomb, he faces mandatory minimums of ten years and thirty years, respectively, on Counts 6s and 7s. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B).
In his objection, Defendant argued that the revisions to § 924(c) enacted by Section 403 of the Fair Sentencing Act require that his sentences for Count 6s and 7s “be imposed concurrently and not ‘stacked'.” (ECF No. 128 at 2). The Government filed a response (ECF No. 137) in which it argued that the changes to § 924(c) did not affect Defendant's sentence, and further that the language of § 924(c)(1)(D) require that the sentences be run consecutively.
The Court finds the legal basis for Defendant's objection incorrect. As argued by the Government and ...