Volume 599 U. S. Part 1 Pages 453–464

OFFICIAL REPORTS OF

THE SUPREME COURT June 16, 2023

Page Proof Pending Publication

REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions

NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. OCTOBER TERM, 2022 453

Syllabus

LORA v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 22–49. Argued March 28, 2023—Decided June 16, 2023 A federal court imposing multiple prison sentences typically has discretion to run the sentences concurrently or consecutively. See 18 U. S. C. § 3584. An exception exists in § 924(c), which provides that “no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment.” § 924(c) (1)(D)(ii). Here, the Court considers whether § 924(c)'s bar on concur- rent sentences extends to a sentence imposed under a different subsec- tion, § 924( j). Petitioner Efrain Lora was convicted of the federal crime of aiding and abetting a violation of § 924( j)(1), which penalizes “a person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (c), causes the death of a person through the use of a frearm,” where “the killing is a murder.” A viola- tion of subsection (c) occurs when a person “uses or carries a frearm” Page Proof Pending Publication “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug traffcking crime,” or “possesses a frearm” “in furtherance of any such crime.” § 924(c)(1)(A). Lora was also convicted of a second federal crime, con- spiring to distribute drugs. At sentencing, the District Court concluded that it lacked discretion to run the sentences for Lora's two convictions concurrently, because § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)'s bar on concurrent sentences governs § 924( j) sen- tences. The District Court sentenced Lora to consecutive terms of im- prisonment for the drug-distribution-conspiracy count and the § 924( j) count. The Court of Appeals affrmed. Held: Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)'s bar on concurrent sentences does not govern a sentence for a § 924( j) conviction. A § 924( j) sentence therefore can run either concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence. Pp. 456–464. (a) Sections 924(c) and 924( j) criminalize the use, carrying, and pos- session of frearms in connection with certain crimes. Subsection (c) lays out a set of offenses and their corresponding penalties. It also mandates that a “term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection” must run consecutively with other sentences. § 924(c)(1) (D)(ii). Subsection ( j) likewise lays out offense elements and corre- sponding penalties. Unlike subsection (c), subsection ( j) contains no consecutive-sentence mandate. Pp. 456–458. 454 LORA v. UNITED STATES

Syllabus

(b) Subsection (c)'s consecutive-sentence mandate applies only to the terms of imprisonment prescribed within subsection (c). A sen- tence imposed under subsection ( j) does not qualify. Subsection ( j) is located outside subsection (c) and does not call for imposing any sen- tence from subsection (c). And while subsection ( j) references subsec- tion (c), that reference is limited to offense elements, not penalties. Pp. 458–459. (c) Congress did not, as the Government maintains, incorporate § 924(c) as a whole into § 924( j) such that a § 924( j) defendant faces sub- section ( j)'s pe