This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 2002, members of a drug-dealing group from the Bronx assassinated a rival drug dealer. P accused D of being one of the group’s leaders and acting as a scout during the fatal shooting. After a jury trial, D was convicted 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 firearm,” where “the killing is a murder.” Under 2(a), an aider and abettor is punishable “as a principal.” D was also convicted of conspiring to distribute drugs, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§841 and 846. D argued that the District Court had discretion to run the §924(j) sentence concurrently with the drug distribution-conspiracy sentence. The District Court held it lacked such discretion. It held that §924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s bar on concurrent sentences governs §924(j) sentences, such that D’s two sentences had to run consecutively. D argued that a §924(j) conviction is not subject to the mandatory minimum sentences specified in §924(c). The District Court applied the five-year mandatory minimum under §924(c)(1)(A) to D’s sentencing calculation. D was sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment: 25 years on the drug-distribution conspiracy count and-consecutively-five years on the §924(j) count. D received five years of supervised release. The Court of Appeals affirmed. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.