DocketNumber： 94-1882
Filed Date： 3/28/1995
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/21/2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1882
UNITED STATES,
Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM CENTENO-TORRES,
Defendant - Appellee.
____________________
No. 94-2156
UNITED STATES,
Appellant,
v.
GABINO GARCIA-PANTOJA,
Defendant - Appellee.
____________________
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Juan M. P rez-Gim nez, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Selya, Circuit Judge. _____________
_____________________
Juan A. Pedrosa, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom _______________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, was on brief for ______________
appellant.
Miguel A.A. Nogueras-Castro, Assistant Federal Public _____________________________
Defender, with whom Benicio S nchez-Rivera, Federal Public _______________________
Defender, and Edgardo L. Rivera-Rivera, by Appointment of the _________________________
Court, were on consolidated brief for appellees.
____________________
March 28, 1995
____________________
-2-
Per Curiam. Appellees William Centeno-Torres and Per Curiam. ___________
Gabino Garc a-Pantoja were indicted for carjacking and using a
firearm in conjunction with a crime of violence, in violation of
18 U.S.C. 2119 and 924(c), respectively. The district court
dismissed the 924(c) count, holding that the Double Jeopardy
clause of the United States Constitution bars simultaneous
prosecution of a defendant for 18 U.S.C. 2119 and 924(c),
because both arise out of a single transaction of carjacking with
a firearm. United States v. Centeno-Torres, 857 F. Supp. 168 _____________ ______________
(D.P.R. 1994). The district court's decision relied heavily on
the Supreme Court's Double Jeopardy analysis in Simpson v. United _______ ______
States, 435 U.S. 6, 98 S. Ct. 909, 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978) and Busic ______ _____
v. United States, 446 U.S. 398, 100 S. Ct. 1747, 64 L.Ed.2d 381 _____________
(1980). The government appealed the district court's ruling, and
we now reverse.
Where Congress has authorized cumulative punishments
for even the same offense, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the
Fifth Amendment is not offended. Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. ________ ______
359, 367, 103 S. Ct. 673, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983). The
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 amended 924(c)1 to
____________________
1 Specifically, the amended version of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1),
states, in pertinent part:
Whoever, during and in relation to any
crime of violence or drug trafficking
crime (including a crime of violence or
drug trafficking crime which provides for
an enhanced punishment if committed by
the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon
or device) for which he may be prosecuted
in a court of the United States, uses or
-3-
include a mandatory penalty for the use of a firearm during a
federal crime of violence and to statutorily overrule Simpson and _______
Busic. United States v. Holloway, 905 F.2d 893, 894 (5th Cir. _____ _____________ ________
1990); see also United States v. Martin, 961 F.2d 161, 163 (11th ________ _____________ ______
Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 271 (1992). In addition to the ____________
language of the Act itself, its legislative history clearly shows
that Congress intended to completely revise 924(c) so that it
would serve as a cumulative punishment in addition to that
provided for the underlying violent crime. See S. Rep. No. 225, ___
98th Cong., 1st Sess. 1983 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. ____________
3182; Pub. L. No. 98-473, 1005, 98 Stat. 1837, 2138.
Accordingly, we join numerous other circuits2 and hold that
cumulative punishment under 18 U.S.C. 2119 and 924(c) does not
offend the Double Jeopardy clause of the United States
Constitution.
Reversed. ________
____________________
carries a firearm, shall, in addition to ______________________
the punishment provided for such crime, _________________________________________
be sentenced to imprisonment for five _________________________________________
years . . . . (emphasis added). _____
2 See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 32 F.3d 82 (4th Cir.), ___ ____ _____________ _______
cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 650 (1994); United States v. Johnson, 22 ____________ _____________ _______
F.3d 106 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Singleton, 16 F.3d _____________ _________
1419 (5th Cir. 1994); Martin, 961 F.2d 161; United States v. ______ _____________
Jones, 34 F.3d 596 (8th Cir. 1994), petition for cert. filed, _____ __________________________
(U.S. Dec. 15, 1994) (No. 94-7281).
-4-
United States of America, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. ... , 34 F.3d 596 ( 1994 )
United States v. Torres , 857 F. Supp. 168 ( 1994 )
United States v. Michael Holloway , 905 F.2d 893 ( 1990 )
United States v. Bruce Anthony Johnson , 32 F.3d 82 ( 1994 )