No. 23-5954

Arthur Picklo v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2023-11-06
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 924(c) consecutive-sentences consecutive-sentencing criminal-procedure federal-criminal-law rule-of-lenity sentencing sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2024-01-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the rule of lenity requires a sentencing court to impose a § 924(c) sentence consecutive to only the predicate crime of violence or drug offense

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Section 924(c) of Title 18 provides two, conflicting mandates for a sentencing court: (1) that the § 924{c) sentence must be imposed “in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime,” and (2) that the § 924(c) sentence may not “run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person.” The question presented is as follows: Whether the rule of lenity requires a sentencing court to impose a § 924(c) sentence consecutive to only the predicate crime of violence or drug offense, since the conflicting provisions under § 924(c) noted above render the statute ambiguous.

Docket Entries

2024-01-08
Petition DENIED.
2023-11-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
2023-11-24
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-10-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 6, 2023)

Attorneys

Arthur Picklo
Arthur Picklo — Petitioner
Arthur Picklo — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent