Ray v. United States
| Decision Date | 18 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-281,86-281 |
| Citation | 481 U.S. 736,95 L.Ed.2d 693,107 S.Ct. 2093 |
| Parties | John William RAY, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Petitioner was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, and two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to concurrent 7-year prison terms on all three counts, and to concurrent special parole terms of five years on the two possession counts. The Court of Appeals affirmed peti- tioner's conspiracy conviction and one of his possession convictions. United States v. Sandoval, 791 F.2d 929 (CA5 1986) (judg. order). Applying the so-called "concurrent sentence doctrine," the court declined to review the second possession conviction because the sentences on the two possession counts were concurrent. We granted certiorari to review the role of the concurrent sentence doctrine in the federal courts. 479 U.S. 960, 107 S.Ct. 454, 93 L.Ed.2d 400 (1986).
It now appears, however, that petitioner is not in fact serving concurrent sentences. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3013 (1982 ed., Supp. III) provides that district courts shall assess a monetary charge "on any person convicted of an offense against the United States." Pursuant to this section, the District Court imposed a $50 assessment on each count, in addition to the concurrent prison and parole terms, for a total of $150. Since petitioner's liability to pay this total depends on the validity of each of his three convictions, the sentences are not concurrent. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore vacated, and the cause is remanded to that court so that it may consider petitioner's challenge to his second possession conviction.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Judge v. United States
...from custody ... [i]t is not available to those ... who challenge only fines or restitution orders"); cf. Ray v. United States, 481 U.S. 736, 107 S.Ct. 2093, 95 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987) (special assessments sufficient to make sentences not concurrent on direct review). Thus the concurrent sentenc......
-
Marcusse v. United States
...concurrent. However, the Court did assess Marcusse $6,000. (1:04-CV-165, Dkt. Nos. 639, at 48; 558, at 5.) In Ray v. United States, 481 U.S. 736, 737 (1987) (per curiam), the Supreme Court held that the concurrent sentencing doctrine does not apply where a defendant must pay an assessment o......
-
U.S. v. Stovall, 86-1453
...L.Ed.2d 87 (1979). The Supreme Court has recently addressed our use of the concurrent sentence doctrine. In Ray v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 2093, 95 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987), the Court held that we could not apply the doctrine to refuse to review a concurrent sentence when the dist......
-
U.S. v. Sullivan
...pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3013 (1988). The concurrent sentence doctrine, therefore, could not apply. See Ray v. United States, 481 U.S. 736, 107 S.Ct. 2093, 95 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987).43 The defendants also attack the government's evidence of lack of registration on two fronts. First, defendant......
-
Review Proceedings
...doctrine inapplicable because low end of Sentencing Guidelines was below mandatory statutory minimum sentence). 2684. See Ray v. U.S., 481 U.S. 736, 737 (1987) (per curiam) (concurrent sentence doctrine inapplicable though prison and parole terms were concurrent because separate monetary pe......