This appeal presents a question of statutory interpretation; we must decide whether the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) either prohibits or requires consecutive sentences where the defendant is convicted of both a drug and a firearm offense. In relevant part, § 924(c) provides:
Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or *1271 dangerous weapon or device) ... in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime — (i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years.
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Section 924(c) further provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law— no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(l)(D)(ii).
In this case, Frankie Segarra pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The plea agreement contained a waiver of appeal provision which barred a direct or collateral appeal unless, relevant to this appeal, (1) the sentence imposed exceeded the guidelines range as determined by the court, or (2) the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. Segarra was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment for the § 841 offense and a mandatory 60-month term for the § 924(c) offense, to be served consecutively. He challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences.
At issue in this case is the interpretation of § 924(c)(l)(A)’s prefatory “except” clause and the imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment. Segarra asserts that, given this “except” clause, the plain language of § 924(c)(1)(A) prohibits consecutive sentences where the underlying offense carried a mandatory minimum that exceeded the minimum applicable to the firearm offense. He contends that the imposition of consecutive sentences therefore exceeded the statutory maximum sentence and the applicable guidelines range. The government argues that the appeal is barred by the terms of the waiver provision in the plea agreement. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the plain language of the statute mandates consecutive sentences and Segarra’s claim is barred by the appeal waiver. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.
We review questions of statutory interpretation
de novo. United States v. Krawczak,
Segarra contends that the imposition of consecutive sentences was improper and resulted in a sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum. He claims, therefore, that his challenge to his sentence is not barred by the appeal waiver. In this case, however, Segarra faced a statutory maximum sentence of life imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Thus, Segarra’s 180-month sentence is well within the statutory maximum, and this argument is barred by the appeal waiver.
The plea agreement, however, also permits Segarra to appeal if the sentence imposed exceeds the guidelines range as determined by the court. Segarra con *1272 tends that he may therefore appeal because the consecutive sentences resulted in an overall term of imprisonment that exceeded the guidelines range.
To determine whether the sentences exceeded the guidelines range, we must first consider whether the district court properly imposed consecutive sentences for the drug and firearm offenses.
As discussed above, Segarra was convicted of drug possession under § 841 and possession of a firearm under § 924(c). Violations of § 841 carry a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(A)(iii). Section 924(c) requires a 60-month term of imprisonment to be served consecutively. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), (c)(l)(D)(ii).
Segarra contends that § 924’s “except” language means that if his mandatory minimum sentence for the drug offenses is greater than the mandatory minimum for the firearm offense, the two sentences cannot run consecutively.
This court has not yet addressed this precise issue. And, although there is a circuit split, only one circuit has followed Segarra’s interpretation. In
United States v. Williams,
the Second Circuit held that it was improper to sentence a defendant for both the § 841 mandatory minimum and the § 924(c) mandatory minimum under the statute’s “except” clause.
Every other circuit to address the issue has rejected the Second Circuit’s interpretation.
See United States v. Easter,
Upon review, we join the majority of circuits and hold that the consecutive sentences imposed here are proper. Given the plain language of § 924(c), we do not interpret the “except” clause to limit consecutive sentences imposed for § 924(c) offenses and the underlying drug crimes.
See Easter,
This reading of the plain language is consistent with other portions of § 924(c),
*1273
specifically, subsection (c)(l)(D)(ii), which provides that “no term of imprisonment ... under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed .... ” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(D)(ii);
see also Easter,
Because the consecutive sentences imposed were mandatory and the term of imprisonment for the firearm offense was set by statute, the sentence imposed did not exceed the statutory maximum permitted or the applicable guidelines range; thus Segarra’s argument on appeal does not fit within any of the appeal waiver exceptions. Importantly, Segarra does not contend that the appeal provision was involuntary or that he did not enter into the agreement knowingly. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as barred by the appeal waiver.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Notes
. Although Segarra cites
United States v. Whitley,
.
See also United States
v.
Pulido,