United States v. Garcia Pantoja

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: March 28, 1995
• Docket: 94-1882
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 94-1882

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellant,

                                          v.

                               WILLIAM CENTENO-TORRES,

                                Defendant - Appellee.

                                 ____________________

          No. 94-2156

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellant,

                                          v.

                                GABINO GARCIA-PANTOJA,

                                Defendant - Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. P rez-Gim nez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                              and Selya, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                _____________________



Juan A. Pedrosa, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
               _______________
          Guillermo  Gil,   United  States  Attorney,  was   on  brief  for
          ______________
          appellant.
               Miguel  A.A.  Nogueras-Castro,   Assistant  Federal   Public
               _____________________________
          Defender,  with  whom   Benicio  S nchez-Rivera,  Federal  Public
                                  _______________________
          Defender,  and Edgardo  L. Rivera-Rivera,  by Appointment  of the
                         _________________________
          Court, were on consolidated brief for appellees.

____________________

                                    March 28, 1995
                                 ____________________

-2-



Per  Curiam.    Appellees  William  Centeno-Torres  and
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          Gabino Garc a-Pantoja  were indicted  for carjacking and  using a

          firearm  in conjunction with a crime of violence, in violation of

          18  U.S.C.    2119 and 924(c),  respectively.  The district court

          dismissed  the   924(c)  count, holding that  the Double Jeopardy

          clause  of  the  United  States  Constitution  bars  simultaneous

          prosecution  of a  defendant for  18 U.S.C.     2119  and 924(c),

          because both arise out of a single transaction of carjacking with

          a firearm.   United States  v. Centeno-Torres, 857  F. Supp.  168
                       _____________     ______________

          (D.P.R. 1994).   The district court's decision  relied heavily on

          the Supreme Court's Double Jeopardy analysis in Simpson v. United
                                                          _______    ______

          States, 435 U.S. 6, 98 S. Ct. 909, 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978) and Busic
          ______                                                      _____

          v.  United States, 446 U.S. 398, 100  S. Ct. 1747, 64 L.Ed.2d 381
              _____________

          (1980).  The government appealed the district court's ruling, and

          we now reverse.

                    Where  Congress  has authorized  cumulative punishments

          for  even the  same offense,  the Double  Jeopardy Clause  of the

          Fifth  Amendment is not offended.   Missouri v.  Hunter, 459 U.S.
                                              ________     ______

          359,  367,  103  S.  Ct.  673,   74  L.Ed.2d  535  (1983).    The

          Comprehensive  Crime Control  Act of  1984 amended    924(c)1  to
                              
          ____________________

          1   Specifically, the amended  version of 18  U.S.C.   924(c)(1),
          states, in pertinent part:

                         Whoever, during and in relation to any
                      crime  of  violence  or drug  trafficking
                      crime (including  a crime of  violence or
                      drug trafficking crime which provides for
                      an  enhanced  punishment if  committed by
                      the use  of a deadly or  dangerous weapon
                      or device) for which he may be prosecuted
                      in a court of  the United States, uses or

                                         -3-



include  a mandatory penalty  for the use  of a firearm  during a

          federal crime of violence and to statutorily overrule Simpson and
                                                                _______

          Busic.   United States  v. Holloway, 905 F.2d  893, 894 (5th Cir.
          _____    _____________     ________

          1990);  see also United States v. Martin, 961 F.2d 161, 163 (11th
                  ________ _____________    ______

          Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.  Ct. 271 (1992).  In addition  to the
                 ____________

          language of the Act itself, its legislative history clearly shows

          that Congress intended to  completely revise   924(c) so  that it

          would  serve  as a  cumulative  punishment  in  addition to  that

          provided for the underlying violent crime.  See S. Rep.  No. 225,
                                                      ___

          98th Cong., 1st Sess. 1983 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.
                                             ____________

          3182;   Pub.  L.  No.  98-473,     1005,  98  Stat.  1837,  2138.

          Accordingly,  we  join numerous  other  circuits2  and hold  that

          cumulative punishment under 18 U.S.C.    2119 and 924(c) does not

          offend  the   Double  Jeopardy   clause  of  the   United  States

          Constitution.

                    Reversed.
                    ________

____________________

                      carries a firearm, shall, in  addition to
                                         ______________________
                      the punishment provided  for such  crime,
                      _________________________________________
                      be  sentenced  to  imprisonment for  five
                      _________________________________________
                      years . . . .  (emphasis added).
                      _____

          2   See, e.g., United States  v. Johnson, 32 F.3d  82 (4th Cir.),
              ___  ____  _____________     _______
          cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 650 (1994); United States v. Johnson, 22
          ____________                         _____________    _______
          F.3d 106 (6th  Cir. 1994);  United States v.  Singleton, 16  F.3d
                                      _____________     _________
          1419 (5th Cir.  1994);  Martin,  961 F.2d 161;  United States  v.
                                  ______                  _____________
          Jones, 34 F.3d  596 (8th  Cir. 1994), petition  for cert.  filed,
          _____                                 __________________________
          (U.S. Dec. 15, 1994) (No. 94-7281).

                                         -4-