Abbott v. United States
131 S. Ct. 18
| SCOTUS | 2010Background
- Abbott and Gould were convicted in separate prosecutions of violating §924(c), along with other offenses.
- Abbott’s sentence included a 15-year ACCA mandatory minimum plus a five-year §924(c) term; Gould received a ten-year trafficking minimum plus a five-year §924(c) term.
- The Third and Fifth Circuits upheld the §924(c) five-year consecutive minimum, reading the “except” clause as referring to other §924(c) minimums only.
- The parties disagreed on whether the “except” clause limits §924(c) punishment when a greater minimum is imposed by a different law.
- The 1998 §924(c) revision added the “except” clause, split §924(c) into four subsections, and heightened penalties for brandishing and discharging a weapon.
- The question presented was whether a defendant is subject to the highest mandatory minimum specified for his conduct under §924(c), or whether another provision may impose a greater minimum to supersede §924(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of the except clause in §924(c) | Gould: any greater minimum on any count blocks §924(c) sentencing | Abbott: greater minimum must be tied to the same conduct or the §924(c) transaction | Court adopts the Government reading: highest §924(c) minimum applies unless another law imposes a greater minimum for the same conduct |
| Scope of 'otherwise provided by this subsection' vs 'any other provision of law' | Abbott: the clause refers to other §924(c) minimums only | Gould: any greater minimum from any provision may apply | Text supports treating the first segment as §924(c)-internal and the second as a safety valve for other provisions |
| Effect of 1998 restructuring on stacking §924(c) penalties | Abbott/Gould: avoid stacking multiple §924(c) minimums in light of restructuring | Government: §924(c) penalties remain subject to a single highest minimum; no stacking | Read as preventing stacking of §924(c) sentences; apply the highest applicable minimum for the conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1995) (held §924(c) did not reach mere possession prior to 1998 reform)
- United States v. O'Brien, 560 U.S. _ (U.S. 2010) (explains 1998 reform and Bailey Fix Act effects)
- Gonzales v. Beaty, None provided in text (2010 (Beaty cited)) (discusses interpretation of 'any other provision of law')
- Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U.S. _ (2009) (addresses scope of 'any other provision of law')
- United States v. Easter, 553 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2009) (supports interpretation of 'any other provision of law' as allowing safety valve)
- United States v. Parker, 549 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2008) (earlier view on the except clause's scope)
- United States v. Villa, 589 F.3d 1334 (10th Cir. 2009) (reads except clause with conduct offending §924(c))
- United States v. Morrow, 266 U.S. 531 (1925) (proviso scope anchored to principal clause)