## Facts

- Defendants participated in a marijuana-smuggling operation based on a single agreement with two objectives: importing marijuana into the United States and distributing it domestically.
- The government charged two federal conspiracy offenses arising from the same agreement:
  - Conspiracy to import marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 963.
  - Conspiracy to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 846.

- A federal district court convicted defendants on both counts and imposed consecutive sentences, producing a total term greater than the maximum for either count alone.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review to determine whether consecutive sentences were authorized and constitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress intended 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 963 to permit cumulative punishment (consecutive sentences) when both conspiracies arise from one agreement with dual objectives.
2. Whether consecutive sentences for conspiracy to import and conspiracy to distribute, based on a single agreement, constitute multiple punishments for the same offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed.
- Congress intended §§ 846 and 963 to define separate offenses and to permit consecutive sentences even when the violations arise from a single agreement with dual objectives.
- Because Congress authorized separate punishments, the consecutive sentences did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The rule of lenity did not apply because the statutory scheme was not ambiguous.

## Legal Principles

- In multiple-punishment cases, the controlling question for Double Jeopardy purposes is whether the legislature intended to authorize separate punishments for the offenses of conviction.
- The Blockburger “same offense” test is a rule of statutory construction: two statutes define different offenses if each requires proof of a fact that the other does not.
- Conspiracy to import (21 U.S.C. § 963) and conspiracy to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 846) satisfy Blockburger because each requires proof of an element the other lacks (importation vs. distribution).
- Braverman’s single-conspiracy rule does not control when Congress has enacted distinct conspiracy statutes rather than a single conspiracy statute covering multiple object offenses.
- Legislative silence does not override the inference from Blockburger where there is no clear indication of contrary legislative intent.
- The rule of lenity applies only when, after standard interpretive tools are applied, a grievous ambiguity remains; it is inapplicable when the statutes clearly authorize separate punishment.

## Conclusion

A single agreement to both import and distribute marijuana can support separate convictions and consecutive sentences under 21 U.S.C. §§ 963 and 846 because Congress created distinct conspiracy offenses, and cumulative punishment therefore does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.


Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (1981)