Interpretation-only case: no authored CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
Case
Element
Holding and scope
Pattern
Exact source quotations
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
We resolve the rest by concluding that this presumption holds true here: Congress intended subsection (j) as an al- ternative, not a supplement, to subsection (c)(1)(A)(i).
We resolve the rest by concluding that this presumption holds true here: Congress intended subsection (j) as an al- ternative, not a supplement, to subsection (c)(1)(A)(i).
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_cl.jsonl#/cl/10774242; Unicode character offsets [10236:10408] (end exclusive); SHA-256 618df42702fde2194e4b7cb741c95581df9281989dea00c699565501919bce39.
Barrett (January 14, 2026) bars two convictions under (c)(1)(A)(i) and (j) for the same act. Section (c) consecutive sentencing must not be exported to a section (j) conviction, which has its own penalty scheme.