Does the Double Jeopardy Clause Preclude Two Sentences for an Act That Violates 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and (j)?

Petitioner Dwayne Barrett was convicted by jury in the Southern District of New York on one count of conspiring to commit Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951), two counts of Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951), three counts of carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)), and one count of murder using a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1)). His convictions and 90-year sentence were affirmed by the Second Circuit but vacated by the Supreme Court and remanded in light of United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019). On remand, the Second Circuit vacated the Section 924(c) conviction predicated on conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery in light of Davis. The district court resentenced petitioner to 50 years of imprisonment-20 years' imprisonment on the conspiracy and robbery counts, plus 5 years of imprisonment for Section 924(c), and 25 years of imprisonment for Section 924(j) (each concerning a different robbery). The district court did not impose a separate Section 924(c) sentence stemming from the murder, reasoning the Sections 924(c) and (j) convictions "merged into one sentence because one's a lesser included of the other." The Second Circuit reversed, ruling that the Sections 924(c) and (j) convictions stemming from the same murder did not merge; thus, imposing separate sentences for both would not run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The circuit ordered petitioner resentenced. The Court will now decide if the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits petitioner from being punished twice for a single act that violates Sections 924(c) and (j). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]