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-