US Supreme Court rules that federal sentencing law does not require consecutive sentences News
MarkThomas / Pixabay
US Supreme Court rules that federal sentencing law does not require consecutive sentences

In a slip opinion on Friday, the US Supreme Court declared that a federal sentencing law gives district courts discretion to impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences for certain drug-related crimes. The case is an appeal from the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Justice Ketanji Brown authored the unanimous opinion. The Court ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)‘s ban on concurrent sentences does not apply to offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) and that district courts have discretion to run sentences under them consecutively or concurrently. The Court noted that (j) does not mention or incorporate the penalties in (c). Additionally, the Court noted that combining the subsections would set them on a “collision course.” The Court vacated the judgment of the appeals court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The petitioner was convicted in district court for his role in a drug-related murder and conspiring to distribute drugs. The district court held that it did not have discretion to make his sentences consecutive or concurrent because of § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s bar. The appeals court affirmed this decision.

THIS DAY @ LAW

Egypt President Anwar Sadat visits Israel

On November 19, 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat visited Israel, becoming the first leader of an Arab nation to officially visit. Two years later, President Sadat became the first Arab leader to recognize Israel by signing the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty. Read President Sadat's address to the Israeli Knesset.

Jay Treaty signed

On November 19, 1794, US Chief Justice John Jay and British foreign secretary Lord Grenville signed a treaty in Philadelphia under which British forces pulled out of the disputed Northwest Territory. Review the Jay Treaty.