Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Lora v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Lora v. United States
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: March 28, 2023
Decided: June 16, 2023
Outcome
vacated and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Lora v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 16, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. It was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 28, 2023. In a unanimous opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, holding that §924(c)’s bar on concurrent sentences does not extend to sentences imposed under subsection §924(j); a sentence for a section §924(j) conviction can run concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence. Therefore, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's could enforce Efrain Lora's §924(j) sentence concurrently with another sentence.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned declarations against interest and penalties for crimes committed under 18 U.S.C.(j). Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The question presented: "Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), which provides that “no term of imprisonment imposed ... under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment,” is triggered when a defendant is convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)."[2]
  • The outcome: In a unanimous opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, holding that §924(c)’s bar on concurrent sentences does not extend to sentences imposed under subsection §924(j); a sentence for a section §924(j) conviction can run concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Efrain Lora was convicted of selling cocaine and cocaine base, and the murder of Andrew Balcarran, a rival seller, on August 11, 2002. According to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit opinion:[3]

    “ On June 24, 2016, after a one-week trial, a jury found Lora guilty of one count of aiding and abetting the use and carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime causing the death of a person, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(j); one count of aiding and abetting the intentional killing of a person while engaged in a conspiracy to distribute narcotics, 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 2; and one count of conspiring to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine mixtures and substances and 280 grams or more of cocaine base mixtures and substances, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. The district court determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove the quantity of drugs involved in the offense and so vacated the quantity finding in Count 3 and vacated the conviction on Count 2 in its entirety. The district court then sentenced Lora to 30 years of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release.[4] ”


    Lora appealed the conviction, specifically the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's admission of two statements introduced at trial, "... (1) Lopez's statement to his cousin Caban after the murder that the purpose of the murder was to take over territory for drug sales; and (2) conversations between Palmer and Lopez, overheard by Caban, complaining that Lora was "stingy" with respect to their fair share of the profits from their drug operation."[3] The U.S. government defended both statements as admissions against interest, meaning that Lopez and Palmer's statements were made against their own interests and that they were unavailable when the statements were admitted into the case record.[5] Lora challenged the admission of the statements as an evidentiary error on the district court's part for not testing the trustworthiness of the declarants, and as an abuse of discretion.[2]

    On February 15, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's ruling. The court held:[3]

    “ We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting both challenged statements at trial. When a declarant is unavailable, his or her statement is admissible if "a reasonable person in the declarant's position would have made [the statement] only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, [the statement] . . . had so great a tendency to . . . expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability." Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3)(A). Where, as here, the statement is offered in a criminal case and would expose the declarant to criminal liability, the statement must also be "supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness." Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3)(B); see United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280, 287 (2d Cir. 1999) ("To evaluate whether a statement is sufficiently trustworthy, we look to evidence that corroborates both the declarant's trustworthiness and the truth of the statement.").


    ... To the extent that Lora argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting these statements without sufficient corroborating evidence of the trustworthiness of the declarants in making the statements, we disagree.[4]

    		”

    Lora appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the court to consider the case. SCOTUS accepted the case to its merits docket for the October 2022-2023 term on December 9, 2022.[2][3]

    Question presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Question presented:
    “ Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), which provides that “no term of imprisonment imposed ... under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment,” is triggered when a defendant is convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j).[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In a 9-0 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, holding that §924(c)’s bar on concurrent sentences does not extend to sentences imposed under subsection §924(j); a sentence for a section §924(j) conviction can run concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence. Therefore, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's could enforce Efrain Lora's §924(j) sentence concurrently with another sentence.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote:[1]

    “ When a federal court imposes multiple prison sentences, it can typically choose whether to run the sentences concurrently or consecutively. See 18 U. S. C. §3584. An exception exists in subsection (c) of §924, which provides that “no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment.” §924(c)(1)(D)(ii).


    In this case, we consider whether §924(c)’s bar on concurrent sentences extends to a sentence imposed under a different subsection: §924(j). We hold that it does not. A sentence for a §924(j) conviction therefore can run either concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence. [4]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.


    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 U.S. Supreme Court, “Lora v. United States,” “Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,” accessed June 16, 2023
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 U.S. Supreme Court, "Efrain Lora v. United States of America: On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit," filed July 15, 2022
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, United States v. Lora, decided February 15, 2022
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "declaration against interest," accessed December 12, 2022
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 28,2023
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 28,2023
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Lora_v._United_States&oldid=9161114"