Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

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 discre- tion 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 concurrent sen- tences extends to a sentence imposed under a different subsection, §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 per- son through the use of a firearm,” where “the killing is a murder.” A violation of subsection (c) occurs when a person “uses or carries a fire- arm” “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug traffick- ing crime,” or “possesses a firearm” “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 affirmed. Held: Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s bar on concurrent sentences does not gov- ern a sentence for a §924(j) conviction. A §924(j) sentence therefore can run either concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence. Pp. 3–10. 2 LORA v. UNITED STATES

Syllabus

(a) Sections 924(c) and 924(j) criminalize the use, carrying, and pos- session of firearms 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 corresponding penalties. Unlike subsection (c), subsection (j) contains no consecutive-sentence mandate. Pp. 3–4. (b) Subsection (c)’s consecutive-sentence mandate applies only to the terms of imprisonment prescribed within subsection (c). A sentence imposed under subsection (j) does not qualify. Subsection (j) is located outside subsection (c) and does not call for imposing any sentence from subsection (c). And while subsection (j) references subsection (c), that reference is limited to offense elements, not penalties. Pp. 4–5. (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 penalties plus subsection (c)’s penalties. Subsection (j) no- where mentions—let alone incorporates—subsection (c)’s penalties. Moreover, as subsections (c) and (j) are written, a sentencing court can- not always obey both sets o