Court Opinion

ID: 9483913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:35:24.469893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:54.959234
License: Public Domain

SILER, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion but write separately to emphasize that perhaps the issue should be revisited en banc, for this panel cannot overrule the decision of another panel of this court. Salmi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 774 F.2d 685 (6th Cir.1985).
The facts in this case are simple, as related in the majority opinion. Upon the execution of a search warrant at defendant’s residence, officers found in the bedroom two firearms and two different types of controlled substances, to-wit, cocaine, listed in Count 1, and Dilaudid (hydromorphone), listed in Count 3. All the conduct charged in the indictment occurred on the same day in the bedroom. Because the drugs were different, they were listed in separate counts. The firearms were charged together but repeated as separate aggravating offenses for each of the drug offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
If I were writing this anew, I would disagree with the majority opinion which holds that the predicate offenses listed in Counts 1 and 3 required proof of different conduct. However, this court has already decided, in United States v. Pope, 561 F.2d 663, 669 (6th Cir.1977), that the simultaneous possession of two distinct controlled substances with intent to distribute can be prosecuted separately and result in consecutive sentences. Other circuits have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., United States v. Bonilla Romero, 836 F.2d 39, 47 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 817, 109 S.Ct. 55, 102 L.Ed.2d 33 (1988); United States v. DeJesus, 806 F.2d 31, 35-37 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1090, 107 S.Ct. 1299, 94 L.Ed.2d 155 (1987); United States v. Grandison, 783 F.2d 1152, 1155-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 845, 107 S.Ct. 160, 93 L.Ed.2d 99 (1986); United States v. Davis, 656 F.2d 153 (5th Cir.1981) cert. denied, 456 U.S. 930, 102 S.Ct. 1979, 72 L.Ed.2d 446 (1982); but see United States v. Martin, 302 F.Supp. 498 (W.D.Pa.1969), aff’d, 428 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 960, 91 S.Ct. 361, 27 L.Ed.2d 269 (1970). Of course, since the adoption of the Sentencing Guidelines the issue of consecutive sentences for the simultaneous possession of two separate controlled substances may not be generally raised, as maximum sentences are so great for drug violations. *138This results in concurrent, not consecutive sentences, for separate drug violations, as was the situation in this case.
The problem arises when a defendant has a single firearm in his possession and yet possesses more than one type of controlled substance, which, if charged in separate counts, will require the court to render consecutive sentences for the one firearm under § 924(c), whereas if the defendant possesses only one type of controlled substance, no matter how large a quantity, he would only have one consecutive § 924(c) sentence. See United States v. Henry, 878 F.2d 937, 943 (6th Cir.1989).
Therefore, although I concur in the result, as it follows current law, I find that the result is an ironic twist in the law that was never intended when Congress adopted 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).