Opinion ID: 2967883
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Firearm Sentences

Text: Finally, we review de novo Higgs’s challenge to the term of imprisonment imposed for the three § 924(c) firearm convictions. The district court imposed consecutive sentences of five years imprisonment, twenty years imprisonment, and twenty years imprisonment on Count Five (use of a firearm during and in relation to the murder and kidnapping of Black), Count Ten (use of a firearm during and in relation to the murder and kidnapping of Chinn), and Count Fifteen (use of a firearm during and in relation to the murder and kidnapping of Jackson), respectively. The twenty-year sentences were imposed pursuant to § 924(c)’s requirement of such enhanced penalties for all second or subsequent convictions. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1). On appeal, Higgs challenges the enhanced twenty-year sentences, arguing that they were not second or subsequent within the meaning of the statute because all three counts arose from one criminal episode in which a single gunman fired multiple shots. In Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993), the defendant committed six armed bank robberies over the course of four months. He was charged in a single indictment with six § 924(c)(1) violations, each of which corresponded to one of the bank robberies also charged. After Deal was convicted on all counts, the district court sentenced him to consecutive sentences for each § 924(c)(1) violation. On appeal, Deal argued that the second through sixth § 924(c) convictions were not second or subsequent to the first because they had been charged in the same indictment and sentenced at the same time. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, concluding the language UNITED STATES v. HIGGS 71 of § 924(c)(1) only requires a conviction after the first conviction. Id. at 135 (emphasis omitted). It does not speak in terms of criminal episodes. In the wake of Deal, at least two courts have rejected the argument Higgs makes here: that multiple consecutive sentences cannot be imposed for § 924(c)(1) convictions arising out of the same criminal episode. See United States v. Casiano, 113 F.3d 420, 424-26 (3d Cir. 1997); United States v. Andrews, 75 F.3d 552, 557-58 (9th Cir. 1996); cf United States v. Burnette, 170 F.3d 567, 572 (6th Cir. 1999) (It is now firmly established that the imposition of separate consecutive sentences for multiple § 924(c) violations occurring during the same criminal episode are lawful.); United States v. Camps, 32 F.3d 102, 109 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that enhanced sentences for consecutive § 924(c) convictions arising out of a single predicate offense were not error). Accordingly, we reject Higgs’s challenge to the enhanced twenty-year sentences imposed for his second and third § 924(c) convictions.