United States v. Houston
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23169
| 5th Cir. | 2010Background
- Houston, a felon, was convicted of firearm possession and multiple counts related to taking vehicles by force and obstructing commerce, with two §924(c) brandishing charges.
- He received 120–240 months on earlier convictions, to run concurrently, and seven years on the first §924(c) count and 25 years on the second §924(c) count, consecutive to other counts.
- Houston argued the seven-year §924(c) sentence could not be imposed consecutively to the 25-year minimum because §924(c)(1)(A)(i) prohibits a greater minimum sentence when another minimum applies.
- The district court imposed the seven-year and 25-year sentences consecutively, treating them as for separate crimes.
- The government appealed and Houston cross-appealed the seven-year sentence, arguing improper application of the 'greater minimum sentence' exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the 'greater minimum sentence' exception in §924(c)(1)(A)(i) apply to a different §924(c) offense? | Houston. | Houston contends the seven-year sentence cannot run consecutively to the 25-year sentence. | Yes; the exception applies only to a greater minimum for the same §924(c) offense, permitting consecutive sentences. |
| Are consecutive §924(c) sentences proper when each relates to separate crimes? | Government. | Houston. | Yes; sentences for separate §924(c) offenses may run consecutively. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Easter, 553 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2009) (interprets 'greater mandatory minimum sentence' as applying to the same §924(c) offense)
- United States v. Williams, 558 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2009) (dictum on transaction-based interpretation of §924(c))
- United States v. Parker, 549 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2008) (restricts 'same transaction' approach to §924(c) sentencing analysis)
- United States v. Park, 531 F.2d 754 (5th Cir. 1976) (illustrates transaction/operative facts concept)
- Moore v. N.Y. Cotton Exch., 270 U.S. 593 (1926) (transaction concept; flexible meaning of 'transaction')
- Dean v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1849 (Supreme Court 2009) (defines §924(c) as a complete offense)