Pryor Rules for Defendant!

In the ever intriguing world of Eleventh Circuit appeals, Judge Pryor has just issued an opinion in favor of a criminal defendant!  Now, I am not suggesting that Judge Pryor is unfair - he is not - he is just very conservative and tends to agree with Government positions.  I guess in the end it is kind of academic because the defendant recieved a jury recommendation of life - which is what he will get on remand.  The question is just how many life sentences he will have to serve, and whether they will be consecutive or concurrent.

"Julian objected to the recommendation in the presentence investigation report that he be sentenced to consecutive life sentences for the counts of murder, but the district court overruled Julian’s objection. The district court ruled that it was required to impose consecutive sentences based on the provision that “no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under [subsection (c)] shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). The district court reasoned that the requirement of consecutive sentencing applies to “all offenses in which [924(c)(1)] is implicated,” including section 924(j). The court then sentenced Julian to two life sentences on the murder charges and a total sentence of 115 years for the other crimes and ordered that all of the sentences run consecutively."

....
"We are unpersuaded by the decisions of the Eighth and Tenth Circuits that sentences imposed under section 924(j) must run consecutively based on section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). United States v. Dinwiddie, 618 F.3d 821, 837 (8th Cir. 2010); Battle, 289 F.3d at 668; United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 769 (8th Cir. 2001), vacated on other grounds, Allen v. United States, 536 U.S. 953, 122 S. Ct. 2653 (2002). Both of those courts held that section 924(j) is a sentencing factor for section 924(c) and not a distinct offense, Battle, 289 F.3d at 666; Allen, 247 F.3d at 769, and we have explained above why we reject that reading of those provisions. Neither court addressed the implications of its interpretation of section 924(j) under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; neither court discussed the distinctions the Supreme Court drew between sentencing factors and elements in Harris and Castillo; and neither court considered that its interpretation of section 924(j) would render section 924(c)(5) surplusage."
This case has a jurisdictional conflict built in - let's see if the Government decides to attempt to take it up.

In any event, the case is United States v. Julian, it is worth a read if you handle 924 cases, although too much of a read in it will leave your head spinning and a strong desire to drink consecutive six-packs.