Abbott v. United States
Encyclopedia
Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. ___ (2010) is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States
that addressed the mandatory sentencing
increase under federal law for the possession or use of a deadly weapon in drug trafficking and violent crimes. In an 8-0 decision, the Court ruled that , which required a minimum five-year prison sentence, was to be imposed in addition to any other mandatory sentence given for another crime, including the underlying drug-related or violent offense. The only exception to the five-year addition applied only when another provision required a longer mandatory term for conduct violating §924(c) specifically, rather than a mandatory sentence for another crime as the defendants had unsuccessfully argued.
Abbott was the first signed opinion of the Court's 2010 term
. The newly appointed Justice Elena Kagan
did not participate, having disqualified herself because she had worked on the case as Solicitor General of the United States prior to joining the Court.
. §924(c)(1) prohibits using, carrying, or possessing a deadly weapon in connection with "any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime," and provides for a minimum sentence of five years in prison in addition to any other sentence imposed for the predicate crime. Congress amended the provision in 1998, to add that the five-year increase would apply "[e]xcept to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law." The interpretation of this "except" clause, at ,was the sole issue in Abbott v. United States.
. The court added five additional years to his sentence under §924(c) for the gun possession, for a total of twenty years. Gould, in an unrelated prosecution, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, which carried a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence, and to a §924(c) violation, receiving a total sentence of sixteen years and five months.
In their respective appeals, Abbott and Gould both argued that the "except" clause at §924(c) was triggered by the mandatory minimums for the other crimes for which they were sentenced: the fifteen years for Abbott as a felon-in-possession, and the ten years for Gould for drug trafficking. Congress' intent, in their view, was to ensure that convictions brought at least five years in prison, not to add on additional years. The Third Circuit
in Abbott's case and the Fifth Circuit
in Gould's both rejected their arguments and affirmed their sentences, ruling that the "except" clause only applied to sentences arising from violations of §924(c), not other crimes.
Abbott and Gould petitioned to the Supreme Court for review. Noting a circuit split
on the issue, the Supreme Court granted certiorari
and consolidated their cases for argument.
.
The Court agreed with the government's statutory interpretation, that the "except" clause is triggered only when another provision commands a longer term for conduct specifically violating §924(c). The Court's view was that "Congress intended the "except" clause to serve simply as a clarification of §924(c), not as a major restraint on the statute's operation."
Gould argued that the "except" clause applied to any other mandatory minimum sentence imposed, while Abbott argued more narrowly that it applied to mandatory sentences arising from the same "criminal transaction" that constituted the §924(c) violation. Both of the petitioners' arguments, however, would often remove any penalty for a violation of §924(c) and also anomalously give shorter sentences to more serious offenders. The Court considered it implausible that Congress intended to lessen the severity of sentencing under §924(c) in 1998, particularly by doing so under a bill dubbed "An Act [t]o throttle criminal use of guns," an act that had as a "primary objective" the expansion of §924(c)'s coverage to reach firearm possession.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
that addressed the mandatory sentencing
Mandatory sentencing
A mandatory sentence is a court decision setting where judicial discretion is limited by law. Typically, people convicted of certain crimes must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison...
increase under federal law for the possession or use of a deadly weapon in drug trafficking and violent crimes. In an 8-0 decision, the Court ruled that , which required a minimum five-year prison sentence, was to be imposed in addition to any other mandatory sentence given for another crime, including the underlying drug-related or violent offense. The only exception to the five-year addition applied only when another provision required a longer mandatory term for conduct violating §924(c) specifically, rather than a mandatory sentence for another crime as the defendants had unsuccessfully argued.
Abbott was the first signed opinion of the Court's 2010 term
2010 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States
This is a list of the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States delivered during its 2010 term, which began October 4, 2010 and concluded October 1, 2011...
. The newly appointed Justice Elena Kagan
Elena Kagan
Elena Kagan is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving since August 7, 2010. Kagan is the Court's 112th justice and fourth female justice....
did not participate, having disqualified herself because she had worked on the case as Solicitor General of the United States prior to joining the Court.
Statutory provisions
was originally enacted as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968Gun Control Act of 1968
The Gun Control Act of 1968 , by president Lyndon Johnson, is a federal law in the United States that broadly regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners...
. §924(c)(1) prohibits using, carrying, or possessing a deadly weapon in connection with "any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime," and provides for a minimum sentence of five years in prison in addition to any other sentence imposed for the predicate crime. Congress amended the provision in 1998, to add that the five-year increase would apply "[e]xcept to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law." The interpretation of this "except" clause, at ,was the sole issue in Abbott v. United States.
Lower court proceedings
Kevin Abbott was convicted of drug trafficking and of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which required a fifteen-year mandatory minimum prison sentence under the Armed Career Criminal ActArmed Career Criminal Act
The Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 is a United States federal law that provides sentence enhancements for felons who commit crimes with firearms, if convicted of certain crimes three or more times....
. The court added five additional years to his sentence under §924(c) for the gun possession, for a total of twenty years. Gould, in an unrelated prosecution, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, which carried a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence, and to a §924(c) violation, receiving a total sentence of sixteen years and five months.
In their respective appeals, Abbott and Gould both argued that the "except" clause at §924(c) was triggered by the mandatory minimums for the other crimes for which they were sentenced: the fifteen years for Abbott as a felon-in-possession, and the ten years for Gould for drug trafficking. Congress' intent, in their view, was to ensure that convictions brought at least five years in prison, not to add on additional years. The Third Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts for the following districts:* District of Delaware* District of New Jersey...
in Abbott's case and the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Louisiana* Middle District of Louisiana...
in Gould's both rejected their arguments and affirmed their sentences, ruling that the "except" clause only applied to sentences arising from violations of §924(c), not other crimes.
Abbott and Gould petitioned to the Supreme Court for review. Noting a circuit split
Circuit split
In the context of United States federal courts, a circuit split exists when two or more circuits in the United States court of appeals system have different interpretations of federal law....
on the issue, the Supreme Court granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
and consolidated their cases for argument.
The Court's decision
The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Third and Fifth Circuits, upholding the imposition of the additional five-year minimum on both petitioners in an opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader Ginsburg
Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ginsburg was appointed by President Bill Clinton and took the oath of office on August 10, 1993. She is the second female justice and the first Jewish female justice.She is generally viewed as belonging to...
.
The Court agreed with the government's statutory interpretation, that the "except" clause is triggered only when another provision commands a longer term for conduct specifically violating §924(c). The Court's view was that "Congress intended the "except" clause to serve simply as a clarification of §924(c), not as a major restraint on the statute's operation."
Gould argued that the "except" clause applied to any other mandatory minimum sentence imposed, while Abbott argued more narrowly that it applied to mandatory sentences arising from the same "criminal transaction" that constituted the §924(c) violation. Both of the petitioners' arguments, however, would often remove any penalty for a violation of §924(c) and also anomalously give shorter sentences to more serious offenders. The Court considered it implausible that Congress intended to lessen the severity of sentencing under §924(c) in 1998, particularly by doing so under a bill dubbed "An Act [t]o throttle criminal use of guns," an act that had as a "primary objective" the expansion of §924(c)'s coverage to reach firearm possession.