·
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 hold, in accord with the courts below, and in line with the majority of the Courts of Appeals, that a defendant is subject to a mandatory, consecutive sentence for a § 924(c) conviction, and is not spared from that sentence by virtue of receiving a higher mandatory minimum on a different count of conviction.
We hold, in accord with the courts below, and in line with the majority of the Courts of Appeals, that a defendant is subject to a mandatory, consecutive sentence for a § 924(c) conviction, and is not spared from that sentence by virtue of receiving a higher mandatory minimum on a different count of conviction.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_562.jsonl#/us/562/0008-01; Unicode character offsets [3127:3439] (end exclusive); SHA-256 94df6ea0b4487cd5d752deca1cb69bd1254db9721e7743cdf4a874c5c37bed63.Abbott, 562 U.S. 8 (2010), construes the (c)(1)(A) proviso. The second text anchor preserves the separate (c)(5) proviso; no independent holding on that ammunition branch is attributed to Abbott.