## Facts

- Milton Dean Batchelder, a previously convicted felon, received a firearm that had traveled in interstate commerce.
- Federal law contained two overlapping provisions covering his conduct: 18 U.S.C. § 922(h) (punished under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a) by up to five years) and 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a) (maximum two years).
- Batchelder was charged and convicted in federal district court under § 922(h) and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment under § 924(a).
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing, concluding Batchelder could not receive more than the two-year maximum associated with § 1202(a) because the statutes overlapped and the scheme raised vagueness concerns.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(h) may be sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)’s five-year maximum when the same conduct also violates 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a), which carries a two-year maximum.
2. Whether the rule of lenity or implied repeal requires limiting punishment for a § 922(h) conviction to § 1202(a)’s lower maximum penalty.
3. Whether due process is violated, or the statutes are void for vagueness, because prosecutors may choose between overlapping statutes with different penalties for the same conduct.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the resentencing order.
- A defendant convicted of violating § 922(h) is properly sentenced under § 924(a), even if the same conduct also violates § 1202(a).
- The overlapping statutes and penalty provisions operate independently; the existence of a lesser-penalty overlapping offense does not cap the sentence for the offense of conviction.
- The statutory scheme is not void for vagueness and does not violate due process merely because it permits prosecutorial selection between overlapping statutes with different penalties.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress enacts separate criminal statutes that overlap in reach, each statute applies according to its terms, including its own penalty provision, absent a contrary indication in statutory text, structure, or history.
- The rule of lenity applies only when a criminal statute is ambiguous; overlap between two unambiguous statutes does not create ambiguity requiring courts to impose the lesser penalty.
- Implied repeal is disfavored and requires a clear conflict (“positive repugnancy”); overlapping statutes with different penalties can coexist when they attach penalties to convictions under different provisions.
- Prosecutors may choose between applicable statutes with different authorized penalties without violating due process, so long as charging decisions are not based on impermissible classifications such as race or religion.
- A vagueness challenge fails where the statutes clearly define the prohibited conduct and the penalties authorized upon conviction.

## Conclusion

The Court held that overlapping firearm statutes with different maximum penalties are constitutionally and statutorily valid: sentencing follows the statute of conviction, lenity and implied repeal do not reduce an unambiguous maximum term, and prosecutorial choice between overlapping provisions is permissible absent discriminatory enforcement.


United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979)