Court Opinion

ID: 2963288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:08:10.082368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:40.190569
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________          No. 94-1882                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellant,                                          v.                               WILLIAM CENTENO-TORRES,                                Defendant - Appellee.                                 ____________________          No. 94-2156                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellant,                                          v.                                GABINO GARCIA-PANTOJA,                                Defendant - Appellee.                                 ____________________                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                  [Hon. Juan M. P rez-Gim nez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________                              and Selya, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________                                _____________________

               Juan A. Pedrosa, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
               _______________          Guillermo  Gil,   United  States  Attorney,  was   on  brief  for
          ______________          appellant.               Miguel  A.A.  Nogueras-Castro,   Assistant  Federal   Public
               _____________________________          Defender,  with  whom   Benicio  S nchez-Rivera,  Federal  Public
                                  _______________________          Defender,  and Edgardo  L. Rivera-Rivera,  by Appointment  of the
                         _________________________          Court, were on consolidated brief for appellees.                                 ____________________                                    March 28, 1995                                 ____________________                                         -2-

                    Per  Curiam.    Appellees  William  Centeno-Torres  and
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________          Gabino Garc a-Pantoja  were indicted  for carjacking and  using a          firearm  in conjunction with a crime of violence, in violation of          18  U.S.C.    2119 and 924(c),  respectively.  The district court          dismissed  the   924(c)  count, holding that  the Double Jeopardy          clause  of  the  United  States  Constitution  bars  simultaneous          prosecution  of a  defendant for  18 U.S.C.     2119  and 924(c),          because both arise out of a single transaction of carjacking with          a firearm.   United States  v. Centeno-Torres, 857  F. Supp.  168
                       _____________     ______________          (D.P.R. 1994).   The district court's decision  relied heavily on          the Supreme Court's Double Jeopardy analysis in Simpson v. United
                                                          _______    ______          States, 435 U.S. 6, 98 S. Ct. 909, 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978) and Busic
          ______                                                      _____          v.  United States, 446 U.S. 398, 100  S. Ct. 1747, 64 L.Ed.2d 381
              _____________          (1980).  The government appealed the district court's ruling, and          we now reverse.                    Where  Congress  has authorized  cumulative punishments          for  even the  same offense,  the Double  Jeopardy Clause  of the          Fifth  Amendment is not offended.   Missouri v.  Hunter, 459 U.S.
                                              ________     ______          359,  367,  103  S.  Ct.  673,   74  L.Ed.2d  535  (1983).    The          Comprehensive  Crime Control  Act of  1984 amended    924(c)1  to                              
          ____________________          1   Specifically, the amended  version of 18  U.S.C.   924(c)(1),          states, in pertinent part:                         Whoever, during and in relation to any                      crime  of  violence  or drug  trafficking                      crime (including  a crime of  violence or                      drug trafficking crime which provides for                      an  enhanced  punishment if  committed by                      the use  of a deadly or  dangerous weapon                      or device) for which he may be prosecuted                      in a court of  the United States, uses or                                         -3-

          include  a mandatory penalty  for the use  of a firearm  during a          federal crime of violence and to statutorily overrule Simpson and
                                                                _______          Busic.   United States  v. Holloway, 905 F.2d  893, 894 (5th Cir.
          _____    _____________     ________          1990);  see also United States v. Martin, 961 F.2d 161, 163 (11th
                  ________ _____________    ______          Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.  Ct. 271 (1992).  In addition  to the
                 ____________          language of the Act itself, its legislative history clearly shows          that Congress intended to  completely revise   924(c) so  that it          would  serve  as a  cumulative  punishment  in  addition to  that          provided for the underlying violent crime.  See S. Rep.  No. 225,
                                                      ___          98th Cong., 1st Sess. 1983 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.
                                             ____________          3182;   Pub.  L.  No.  98-473,     1005,  98  Stat.  1837,  2138.          Accordingly,  we  join numerous  other  circuits2  and hold  that          cumulative punishment under 18 U.S.C.    2119 and 924(c) does not          offend  the   Double  Jeopardy   clause  of  the   United  States          Constitution.                    Reversed.
                    ________                              
          ____________________                      carries a firearm, shall, in  addition to
                                         ______________________                      the punishment provided  for such  crime,
                      _________________________________________                      be  sentenced  to  imprisonment for  five
                      _________________________________________                      years . . . .  (emphasis added).
                      _____          2   See, e.g., United States  v. Johnson, 32 F.3d  82 (4th Cir.),
              ___  ____  _____________     _______          cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 650 (1994); United States v. Johnson, 22
          ____________                         _____________    _______          F.3d 106 (6th  Cir. 1994);  United States v.  Singleton, 16  F.3d
                                      _____________     _________          1419 (5th Cir.  1994);  Martin,  961 F.2d 161;  United States  v.
                                  ______                  _____________          Jones, 34 F.3d  596 (8th  Cir. 1994), petition  for cert.  filed,
          _____                                 __________________________          (U.S. Dec. 15, 1994) (No. 94-7281).                                         -4-