Ray v. United States

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 481 U.S. 736, 107 S. Ct. 2093, 95 L. Ed. 2d 693, 55 U.S.L.W. 4662, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2052, SCDB 1986-100

Decision Date: 5/18/1987

Docket Number: No. 86-281

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Ray v. United States, 481 U.S. 736, 107 S. Ct. 2093, 95 L. Ed. 2d 693, 55 U.S.L.W. 4662, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2052, SCDB 1986-100 (1987)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1987

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Landmark AuthorityTop 1% most-cited · cited by 121 decisions

121

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

statute cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

7th Cir.23

5th Cir.21

2d Cir.8

3d Cir.8

10th Cir.7

6th Cir.7

Most recently cited by10

2026United States v. Christopher Texidor 3rd Cir.
2026United States v. James Abrams 3rd Cir.
2026United States v. Stephen Regis, Jr. 11th Cir.
2026United States v. Tonya Robinson 7th Cir.
2026United States v. Albert Smith 7th Cir.
2025United States v. Philmon Chambers 11th Cir.
2025Purcell v. United States 2d Cir.
2025United States v. Albert Smith 7th Cir.
2025United States v. Tonya Robinson 7th Cir.
2025United States v. Barrow 2d Cir.

Cites 1 statute

Special assessment on convicted persons

Cites 1 case

United States v. Sandoval

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

RAY v. UNITED STATES

Attorneys

Joseph A. Connors III argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Matías Morin, Jr.
Deputy Solicitor General Bryson argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Weld, and Andrew J. Pincus.

majority Per Curiam.

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 petitioner’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 (1986).

It now appears, however, that petitioner is not in fact serving concurrent sentences. Title 18 U. S. C. § 3013 (1982 ed., Supp. Ill) 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.