·
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | 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.