We'll hear argument next in case 24-5774 Barrett v. United States. Mr. Larson.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, possessing a gun in violation of 924C1A is a lesser

included offense of using it lethally in violation of 924J. The offenses are, therefore,

the same for purposes of double jeopardy,

meaning there's a presumption that Congress did not intend two punishments for one fatal

shooting. And this presumption controls unless there is a clear indication that Congress wanted

to double punish. But there isn't any. As Court-appointed amicus acknowledges,

924J says nothing about punishment under

both statutes, and is detailed in our briefing, neither is 924C. On the contrary, while 924C is very

clear that its punishment applies in addition to that for the underlying felony, it does not say

its punishment applies in addition to that

for a lethal shooting in violation of 924J. And the reason for this, as your honors explained

in Laura, is that Congress designed 924J's penalties, which include life in prison and even

death, to account for the seriousness of the offense by themselves without incorporating

penalties from subsection C. Indeed, as the Court also noted in Laura, when Congress wrote

924J in 1994, it specifically considered but rejected a proposal to impose multiple punishments

for a fatal shooting. Only in 2005 did Congress write

924C5 to cumulatively punish fatal gun use, but only where armor-piercing ammunition is used,

and that is not this case. In short, Your Honors, and as 924C5 confirms, Congress knows

how to order multiple punishments for a

lethal shooting when it wants to. It has not done so here. I welcome the Court's questions.

So are you saying that all of 924C1 is a lesser included offense of 924 jet.

...