Abbott v. United States | |
---|---|
Argued October 4, 2010 Decided November 15, 2010 | |
Full case name | Kevin Abbott v. United States[1] |
Docket no. | 09-479 |
Citations | 562 U.S. 8 (more) 131 S. Ct. 18; 178 L. Ed. 2d 348 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Defendant convicted and sentenced, E.D. Pa.; affirmed, 574 F. 3d 203 (3d Cir. );[2] cert. granted, 559 U.S. 8 (2010). |
Holding | |
A defendant is subject to the highest mandatory minimum specified for his conduct in 18 U.S.C. §924(c), unless another provision of law directed to conduct proscribed by §924(c) imposes an even greater mandatory minimum. Third and Fifth Circuits affirmed. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor |
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8 (2010), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed the mandatory sentencing increase under federal law for the possession or use of a deadly weapon in drug trafficking and violent crimes. In an 8–0 decision, the Court ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which required a minimum five-year prison sentence, was to be imposed in addition to any other mandatory sentence given for another crime, including the underlying drug-related or violent offense. The only exception to the five-year addition applied only when another provision required a longer mandatory term for conduct violating §924(c) specifically, rather than a mandatory sentence for another crime as the defendants had unsuccessfully argued.
Abbott was the first signed opinion of the Court's 2010 term.[3] The newly appointed Justice Elena Kagan did not participate, having disqualified herself because she had worked on the case as Solicitor General of the United States prior to joining the Court.[4]