Gonzalez-Arimont's second argument is that his indictment and conviction for violations of both 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119(3) and 924(c) violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because the two counts concern the same criminal conduct. In making this argument, appellant relies primarily on a district court case which was reversed by this court, United States v. Centeno-Torres, 857 F.Supp. 168 (D.P.R. 1994), rev'd, 50 F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 1995). Centeno-Torres involved the same statutory provisions at issue in this case.
The district court dismissed the § 924(c) count, holding that the Double Jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution bars simultaneous prosecution of a defendant for 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119 and 924(c), because both arise out of a single transaction of carjacking with a firearm. United States v. Centeno-Torres, 857 F. Supp. 168 (D.P.R. 1994). The district court's decision relied heavily on the Supreme Court's Double Jeopardy analysis in Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 98 S.Ct. 909, 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978) and Busic v. United States, 446 U.S. 398, 100 S.Ct. 1747, 64 L.Ed.2d 381 (1980).
Nevertheless, it is important to note that one of the district courts in this circuit has adopted the opposite view and concluded that double jeopardy is offended because of a lack of clear congressional intent to authorize cumulative punishments under these two statutes. See United States v. Torres, 857 F. Supp. 168 (D.P.R. 1994). Although the First Circuit has not yet directly addressed this precise issue, this Court is again persuaded by and agrees with the circuit courts' present analyses regarding the conclusion that there is no double jeopardy violation because Congress clearly intended to authorize cumulative punishments under the two statutes.
This question has divided the district courts, with some finding no Double Jeopardy violation, see, e.g., United States v. Sabini, 842 F. Supp. 1448 (S.D.Fla. 1994); United States v. Zukinta, 830 F. Supp. 418 (E.D.Tenn. 1993), and others finding cumulative sentencing under the statutes to be unconstitutional. See, e.g., United States v. Torres, 857 F. Supp. 168 (D.P.R. 1994); United States v. Moore, 832 F. Supp. 335 (N.D.Ala. 1993). However, in recent months, unanimity has begun to settle in among the various Courts of Appeal, with all upholding conviction and sentencing under both statutes.