Opinion ID: 751894
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Was Sehorn properly sentenced?

Text: 89 The district court sentenced Sehorn to a 20-year mandatory sentence on Count Two, which charged aiding and abetting a firearms crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). This statute provides that [i]n the case of his second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, such person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years ... Because Sehorn was previously convicted under this statute for a Los Angeles robbery, the district court sentenced Sehorn to the mandatory twenty-year sentence. 90 Sehorn argues that the mandatory twenty-year sentence was not warranted because the Los Angeles robbery occurred after the July 1992 robbery for which appellant was convicted in this case. However, the language of § 924(c) plainly refers to a subsequent conviction, not a subsequent crime. As this court has pointed out: There is nothing in the simple wording of this statute that requires that an offense underlying a second conviction occur after the conviction for the first offense. The only requirement is that a conviction be second or subsequent, not that any offense underlying that conviction follow a first conviction. United States v. Neal, 976 F.2d 601, 602 (9th Cir.1992). See also Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 134, 113 S.Ct. 1993, 1997-98, 124 L.Ed.2d 44 (1993) (noting that the term second or subsequent conviction means that a defendant convicted of a crime committed in 1992, who has previously been convicted of a crime committed in 1993, would receive the enhanced sentence). Thus, the twenty-year mandatory sentence was proper. 12 91