Document: 520 U.S. 1117 S.Ct. 1032137 L.Ed.2d 132 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Miguel GONZALES, Orlenis Hernandez-Diaz and Mario Perez. No. 95-1605. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 11, 1996. Decided March 3, 1997. Syllabus * All three respondents were convicted in New Mexico courts sentenced to prison terms on state charges arising from use guns by two them hold up undercover officers during a drug sting operation. After they began serve their sentences, various related federal connected operation, using firearms those crimes violation 18 U.S.C. §924(c). In ordering imprisonment, District directed that portion sentences attributable convictions run concurrently with remaining 60-month required §924(c) consecutively both. Among other rulings, Tenth Circuit vacated ground should have terms. The court found §924(c)'s language be ambiguous, resorted legislative history, held sentence may previously imposed, already operational sentence, but not another sentence. Held: Section plain language-i.e., "the . under this subsection [shall not] any term imprisonment'' (emphasis added)-forbids district direct section's mandatory 5-year term, whether or federal. Read naturally, word "any'' has an expansive meaning is limited so must interpreted as referring all "term[s] imprisonment,'' including imposed courts. Cf., e.g., v. Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 350, 358, 114 1599, 1604, 128 319. Unlike Circuit, sees nothing remarkable (much less ambiguous) about Congress' decision, drafting §924(c), prohibit concurrent instead simply mandating consecutive ones. Moreover, given straightforward statutory command, there no reason resort history. Connecticut Nat. Bank Germain, 503 249, 254, 112 1146, 1149-1150, 117 391. Indeed, history excerpt relied upon only muddies waters. Contrary court's interpretation, prohibition applies does limit normal authority §3584(a) order Pp. ____-____. 65 F.3d 814, remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, which REHNQUIST, C. SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion, BREYER, Miguel A. Estrada, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Edward O. Bustamante, Albuquerque, NM, appointed respondents. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 We are asked decide state-imposed even though provides statute "shall [not] imprisonment.'' it not. 2 Respondents arrested operation pulled police officers. hold-up. ranging 13 17 years. committing offenses conspiring do so, 21 §§841 846. They also relation trafficking crimes, received 120 147 months prison, 60 reflected convictions. Pursuant ordered respondents' due 3 Appeals violations, 814 (1995). —(The substantive dealt sentencing issues before us.) Although recognized circuits had uniformly "held prohibits running sentences,'' nevertheless thought "a literal reading would produce absurd result.'' Id., at 819. Feeling obliged "venture into thicket history,'' id., 820 (citations internal quotation marks omitted), line Senate Committee Report indicating ""the revised 924(c) [should] served prior start underlying offense,''' ibid. (quoting S.Rep. 98-225, pp. 313-314 (1983) (hereinafter S. Rep.)) deleted). If statement applied literally, first then firearm finally narcotics convictions-even normally since arose out same criminal activity. F.3d, 821. To avoid irrational result, "§924(c)'s five-year defendant begun serve. '' 4 granted certiorari, 518 ____, 116 2522, 135 1047, now reverse. II 5 Our analysis begins, always, text. 924(c)(1) provides: 6 "Whoever, crime he prosecuted States, uses carries firearm, shall, addition punishment provided such , imprisonment five years Notwithstanding provision law, shall place probation suspend person subsection, nor was used carried.'' §924(c)(1) added). 7 question we face phrase "any "means what says, some subset'' Maine Thiboutot, 448 1, 4, 100 2502, 2504, 555 (1980)-namely, sentences. meaning, is, "one indiscriminately whatever kind.'' Webster's Third International Dictionary 97 (1976). Congress did add limiting breadth word, read Cf. 319 (1994) (noting law enforcement officer'' includes "federal, state, local'' officers); Collector Hubbard, 12 Wall. 15, 20 L.Ed. 272 (1871) (stating "it quite clear'' prohibiting filing suit "in court'' "includes State well Federal courts,'' because "there [statute] tending show words court' ordinary sense''). There basis text 8 his STEVENS suggests "unquestionably federal.''' Post, __. however, explicitly scope violence crime'' "for [a defendant] States.'' Given expressly find significant similar restriction modifies appears later issue case. See Russello 464 16, 23, 104 296, 300, 78 (""Where particular one section omits Act, generally presumed acts intentionally purposely disparate inclusion exclusion'''). 9 ambiguity 820. lower court, see choice words. Because exact opposites, implicitly when prohibited other. This "ambiguity'' event, beside point phraseology bearing meant imprisonment. 10 391 (1992). far clarifying statute, accompanying 1984 amendment Appeals, reads: 11 " [T]he intends offense.'' Rep., 313-314. snippet injects entirely new idea-that conviction added requirement, way anchored statute.'' Shannon 512 573, 583, 2419, 2426, 129 459 (1994). troubled rule might lead results. Normally, (vesting power most either consecutively); Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §5G1.3 (Nov.1995) (USSG) (guiding discretion §3584(a)). could begin until after completed, effectively stripped its 822. observed dramatically higher particularly Perez, example, serving 17-year role 7.25-year possession USSG §5G1.3(b); follow both, total 22 prison. 29.25 14 Seeking conflict between (as reinterpreted light history) §3584(a), concurrently. Ibid. It reasoned narrow necessary later-sentencing can cause being served.'' 15 flaws reasoning. First, texts §§924(c) 3584(a), unvarnished consistent. specifies leaves plenty room sentences-whether offenses-concurrently pursuant §5G1.3. statutes clash if engraft onto requirement single buried history: first. therefore text, rather than By disregarding suggestion specify give full both 3584(a). Wiltberger, Wheat. 76, 95-96, 37 (1820) (Marshall, C.J.) ("Where words, construction. case strong indeed, justify departing search intention themselves suggest''). 16 Second, ignored list different convictions, thereby create superfluous §3584(c). That instructs Bureau Prisons treat multiple consecutively, administrative purposes single, aggregate As practical matter, then, makes difference sequence each served. will impose duties that, view commands, meaningless. Third, Appeals' solution-to allow sentences-does eliminate anomaly arises "first.'' clear cannot possibly earlier-imposed holds true prisoner §3585(a) (providing commences custody voluntarily arrives sentence). impossible serving, get rid problem. Thus, think invented problem devised wrong solution. BREYER questions, dissent, wanted who virtually identical enhancement statute. A (for double jeopardy reasons) dissent argues, unlikely stack enhancement. 19 observed, speculate congressional intent. supra, __-__. speaks without limitation, intimation certain types Guidelines, course, cases where proceedings, establish "with eye toward having punishments approximate penalty been time Witte 515 115 2199, 2208, 351 (1995) (discussing §5G1.3). post, __-__ (Breyer, dissenting). When enacted consecutive-sentencing provision, cabined circumstance: violates directive, carve exceptions based judicial perceptions good policy. Other reinforces our conclusion. 1984, amended apply regardless felony "provides enhanced committed deadly dangerous weapon device.'' Comprehensive Crime Control Act Pub.L. 98-473, §1005(a), 98 Stat. 2138-2139. thus repudiated result reached Busic 446 398, 1747, 64 381 (1980), "prosecution permissible predicate contains own provision,'' irrespective Government actually sought 404, S.Ct., 1751-1752; Simpson 435 6, 909, 914, 55 70 (1978) (holding armed bank robbery §2113, transaction). holdings these conclusion unamended left us little "more guess'' how mesh provisions scattered throughout code. Simpson, 914; Busic, 405, 1752. amendment, eliminated ambiguities. At point, made desire enhancements terms, agree BREYER's contention interpretation distinguishes "those subject undischarged federal, sentences.'' Both sorts defendants according principles, plus short, foreclosed dissent's argument covers Finally, pause comment STEVENS' concern over today's decision affect trial follows judge imposes sentence'' viewed inconsistent That, case, occasion bound today hesitant reach beyond facts squarely presented review. III sum, forbids not, terms-state federal-under §3584. 23 judgment vacated, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 24 ordered. 25 whom joins, dissenting. 26 These enterprise violated gave rise prosecutions. raise important concerning against contained §924(c)(1). reads permits prosecution precedes prosecution.1 Thus length imprisonment-including sentence-is determined, part, happenstance tried 27 anomalous result. broadly "concurrently require judges make Alternatively, (because she applicability sentences), authorities 28 relying heavily pure textual analysis, Court's appear dictate Like Government, I reasonably containing command requiring suspension imposed. common sense requires reject purely better plausible nonliteral readings. Should narrowed cover respondent contends? 29 For reasons, more likely intended latter interpretation. borders assume intend severity defendant's kind turn concluded avoids anomaly. 1970 Title II, Omnibus 1970, 84 1889, offense. broaden offense, said sentences; mention change history.2 Furthermore, part general revision laws achieve uniformity predictability sentencing. Reform 1987, §3551 et seq. Government's authorizes basic theme legislation. context relevant concerned earlier unquestionably federal.''3 30 recognition fact completely untenable, offers dictionary definition support wiser course interpret 31 Accordingly, respectfully dissent. 32 33 believe right. concerns Hence "other refer "terms.'' With respect therefore, permissive, mandatory. concurrent. 34 Quite often, state/federal circumstance, consecutive/concurrent judges, understanding §924 issue, way. (even force result) treating similarly situated offenders differently. (Nov.1995). Ordinarily, State, irrelevant objective. 35 least probably itself mimics Such situation arise initial Constitution forbid effort twice instance gun possession. Brown Ohio, 432 161, 165, 2221, 2225, 53 187 (1977). But version offender constitutionally permissible, cf. Abbate 359 187, 79 666, 729 (1959); Heath Alabama, 474 82, 106 433, 88 387 (1985)), differently, harshly, possible counterpart. 36 am inventing hypothetical possibility. very us, punished petitioners, counterpart itself, N.M. Ann. §31-18-16(A) (Supp.1994), much resembles. ___, 2205-2208, understand guarantee amount additional why pile Pelion Ossa way, adding thing. Nor potentially harsh distinction sentences-a majority's holding. 2208-2209. reason, along discussed, me alone, close syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. Reply Brief 10-11; Tr. Oral Arg. 6-10. construction sweeping relatively unorthodox here, detectives take consideration watchdog bark night.'' Harrison PPG Industries, Inc., 578, 602, 1902, 525 (1980) (REHNQUIST, J. confined second describe law,'' again obvious embraces limitation implicit explicit. Nowhere explicit reference

Category: 0