UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ORESTES LUCIANO ABREU AND JAMES DAVID THORNBRUGH, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) is proper when two offenses are charged in the same indictment and convicted in the same trial, even if the second offense was not committed after a prior conviction.
The court revisited its prior en banc decision in United States v. Abreu following the Supreme Court's ruling in Deal v. United States. The Supreme Co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Enhanced Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.
On April 13, 1992, this court held en banc that an enhanced sentence for a second or subsequent conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (1988) is only proper when the underlying offense has been committed after a judgment of conviction on a prior section 924(c) offense. See United States v. Abreu, 962 F. 2d 1447 (10th Cir.1992) (en banc).1 On May 17, 1993, the Supreme Court considered the same issue in another ease and concluded to the contrary. See Deal v. United States, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1993, 124 L.Ed.2d 44 (1993). Under the Supreme Court’s holding in Deal, a second or subsequent conviction for purposes of section 924(c) can occur when two offenses are charged in the same indictment and the defendant is convicted of both offenses in the same trial.
In anticipation of the Supreme Court’s resolution of the issue in Deal, the United States filed a petition for certiorari in July 1992 seeking review of our holding in Abreu.
On May 24, 1993, the Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further consideration in light of Deal. See United States v. Abreu, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2405, 124 L.Ed.2d 630 (1993). We have now revisited the issue in light of Deal, and we can ascertain no meaningful basis upon which to distinguish the facts in Deal from the circumstances before us.
Accordingly, we hereby withdraw the mandates in our en banc decision and in the separate panel opinions in United States v. Abreu, 962 F. 2d 1425 (10th Cir.1992), and United States v. Thornbrugh, 962 F. 2d 1438 (10th Cir.1992). We vacated the orders that reversed defendants’ enhanced sentences and remanded for resentencing in accordance with our en banc decision.
We now AFFIRM Abreu’s enhanced sentence on Count IV, and we AFFIRM the two enhanced sentences given to Thombrugh. In all other respects the panel opinions disposing of the remaining issues raised by defendants are unaffected.
AFFIRMED.
. In separate panel opinions we considered and rejected the remaining allegations of error raised individually by defendants. See United States v. Abreu, 962 F. 2d 1425 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Thornbrugh, 962 F. 2d 1438 (10th Cir.1992).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1993)
- United States v. Thornbrugh, 962 F.2d 1438 (10th Cir. 1992)
- United States v. Orestes Luciano Abreu, 962 F.2d 1425 (10th Cir. 1992)