Consecutive Sentences Hadn’t Been Served So As to Create Double Jeopardy Problem at Resentencing

US v. Bullis: In 1996, Bullis was convicted for six separate offenses after mailing pipe bombs to his wife’s office (one went off, injuring her, the other was intercepted). Of the six offenses, two were for use of a “firearm” during crimes of violence under §924(c). At sentencing, the district court imposed a 235-month sentence on the other four counts to run concurrently with each other, then imposed a 360-month consecutive sentence on one §924(c) offense and a life sentence on the other, to also run consecutively to the other four. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson (and its progeny), Bullis filed a §2255 motion that resulted in the two §924(c) counts being vacated.

At the time of resentencing, Bullis had served 331 months in prison. The district court imposed concurrent sentences of 240 months on three counts, but a sentence of 450 months on the other, leaving Bullis approximately 119 months to serve. The district court also attempted to impose conditions of supervised release by referencing “standard” conditions adopted in the district.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated Bullis’ sentence due to error in imposing conditions of supervised release, but approved of the term of imprisonment imposed at resentencing. Bullis’ primary argument was that the new sentence violated Double Jeopardy because he was resentenced on counts for which his sentence was already complete. The court disagreed, distinguishing between situations where multiple sentences are imposed to run concurrently with each other and those where consecutive sentences are imposed. In the former, each sentence imposed stands on its own, but in the latter the sentences running consecutive to each other form unified “packages.” In Bullis’ case there were two “packages” consisting of each §924(c) offense plus the other terms to which they were ordered to run consecutively. Analyzed that way, Bullis had not fully served either sentence package. Nonetheless, the court had to vacate the sentence due to yet another Rogers error in the imposition of conditions of supervised release.