United States v. Lira, No. 11-30324 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence stemming from a conviction for use or carrying and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (Count IV). The district court relied on Harris v. United States when it sentenced defendant. Harris has since been overruled in Alleyne v. United States, which held that facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury and established beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the government conceded that Count IV did not comport with Alleyne because the increased mandatory minimum sentence was based on a fact found by the district court by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing where the district court must reexamine the entire sentence in light of the vacated sentence on Count IV.
Court Description: Criminal Law. Vacating and remanding for resentencing, the panel held that the defendant’s sentence on a conviction for use or carrying and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) does not comport with the Supreme Court’s post-sentencing decision in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), because the increased mandatory minimum was based on a fact found by the district court by a preponderance of the evidence rather than submitted to a jury and established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.