Dean v. United States
137 S. Ct. 1170
| SCOTUS | 2017Background
- Levon Dean Jr. and his brother committed two armed robberies of drug dealers; the brother threatened and assaulted victims with a rifle while Dean searched for valuables.
- Dean was convicted of conspiracy, two robberies, possession of a firearm as a felon, and two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.
- §924(c) carries mandatory minimums: 5 years for a first conviction and an additional 25 years for a second, and requires those terms be imposed "in addition to" and consecutively to any sentence for the predicate offense—yielding a 30-year mandatory minimum for Dean.
- At sentencing Dean asked the court to account for the §924(c) mandatory minimums when setting sentences for the predicate counts (seeking one-day concurrent terms); the district judge agreed in principle but thought §924(c) precluded doing so and instead imposed downward-variant 40‑month concurrent sentences for the non‑§924(c) counts (total 400 months with §924(c)).
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, applying circuit precedent; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether §924(c) bars a sentencing court from considering a §924(c) mandatory minimum when calculating the sentence for the predicate offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §924(c) prohibits a district court from considering a §924(c) mandatory minimum when determining the appropriate sentence for the predicate offense | Dean: district courts may and should consider the §924(c) mandatory minimum under §3553(a) when setting predicate sentences | Government: courts must determine each offense's sentence independently, ignoring other mandatory minimums until §3584(a)/(b) aggregate/consecutive analysis | The Court held §924(c) does not bar consideration of a §924(c) mandatory minimum when calculating a sentence for the predicate offense; sentencing courts may consider those mandatory minimums under §3553(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (courts may consider a wide range of information about the defendant in imposing sentence)
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (discusses "sentencing package" practice in multicount cases)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (courts should not infer statutory limits from congressional silence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standards for appellate review of sentencing decisions)