This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case is docket No. 15‑9260.
Oral argument was held on Tuesday, February 28, 2017.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Ginsburg stated that there is a bar on concurrent sentencing under § 924(c).
Justice Kagan asked whether the case was occurring twenty years later.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Levon Dean, Jr.) Position
According to Mr. Stoler, petitioner argues that the separate crime and separate punishment provision of § 924(c) requires a distinct sentencing analysis.
According to Mr. Stoler, petitioner further contends that district courts have no affirmative ban on applying § 924(c) sentencing when considering predicate offenses, emphasizing judicial discretion and parsimony.
Respondent (United States) Position
According to Mr. Yang, respondent argues that, when read together with the Sentencing Reform Act, Congress’s intent in § 924(c) is clear and supports the statutory scheme.
According to Mr. Yang, respondent further maintains that Congress intended judges to determine the aggregate length of sentences—whether they run concurrently or consecutively—when multiple offenses carry imprisonment terms.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- f1094bc54458adde3adb-r1-5de4b8ccd0980e86.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.