Page:Lora v. United States.pdf/4

2 through the use of a firearm,” where “the killing is a murder.” See also §2(a) (an aider and abettor is punishable “as a principal”). Lora was also convicted of conspiring to distribute drugs, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§841 and 846.

At sentencing, the District Court rejected two of Lora’s arguments about his §924(j) conviction. Most pertinent here, Lora argued that the District Court had discretion to run the §924(j) sentence concurrently with the drug-distribution-conspiracy sentence. The District Court held it lacked such discretion. Applying Circuit precedent, it held that §924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s bar on concurrent sentences governs §924(j) sentences, such that Lora’s two sentences had to run consecutively. See United States v. Barrett, 937 F. 3d 126, 129, n. 2 (CA2 2019). Lora also argued that a §924(j) conviction is not subject to the mandatory minimum sentences specified in §924(c). Disagreeing once again, the District Court applied the five-year mandatory minimum under §924(c)(1)(A) to Lora’s sentencing calculation.

The District Court ultimately sentenced Lora to 30 years of imprisonment: 25 years on the drug-distribution-conspiracy count and—consecutively—five years on the §924(j) count. Lora also received five years of supervised release.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, adhering to its precedent barring §924(j) sentences from running concurrently with other sentences. That decision reinforced a conflict among the Courts of Appeals over whether §924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s concurrent-sentence bar governs §924(j) sentences. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 598 U. S. ___ (2022).