SCOTUS grants cert. on two new criminal cases, including one involving a sentencing issue

The Supreme Court this afternoon granted cert on four new cases in this order.  Two of the new cases to be argued in early 2023 are criminal cases, and here is an account of them from this SCOTUSblog post about the grants:

In United States v. Hansen, the justices agreed to review the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i), a federal law that makes it a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to encourage or cause unauthorized immigrants to enter or reside in the United States.  Three years ago, the court agreed to take up this question in another case, United States v. Sineneng-Smith, but it did not resolve it.  Instead, a unanimous court ruled that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had improperly injected the issue into the case.

The question returns to the court in the case of Helaman Hansen, who was convicted under Section 1324(a)(1)(B)(i) for running a program that, in exchange for fees of up to $10,000, promised to help adult unauthorized immigrants become U.S. citizens through adoption.  On appeal, he argued — and a panel of the 9th Circuit agreed — that the statute violates the First Amendment because it is so broad that it would also apply to speech protected by the Constitution — for example, a statement that merely encourages someone to stay in the United States. After the 9th Circuit declined to rehear the case, the federal government came to the Supreme Court, which agreed on Friday to weigh in....

In Lora v. United States, the justices agreed to decide whether federal criminal sentencing laws require a New York man convicted for his role in a drug-trafficking-related murder to be sentenced to consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.

John Elwood in his most recent "Relist Watch" SCOTUSblog post provided these additional details about the Lora case:

Next up is Lora v. United States, presenting an issue of federal criminal sentencing.  District courts have discretion to impose either consecutive or concurrent sentences unless a statute mandates otherwise.  Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) of Title 18, which imposes penalties for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime, specifies that sentences imposed “under this subsection” must run consecutive to other sentences. Efrain Lora was convicted and sentenced for a drug-trafficking-related murder under a different subsection, Section 924(j).  Lora therefore argued that the district court had discretion to impose concurrent sentences because Section 924(j) creates an offense distinct from Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii).  But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the district court was required to impose consecutive sentences because it concluded that Section 924(j) is essentially an aggravated form of the Section 924(c) offense.

Lora argues that four circuit courts have reached the same conclusion as the 2nd Circuit, and at least two circuits have disagreed.  The government acknowledges what it calls a “narrow conflict in the circuits as to whether [Section] 924(c)’s consecutive-sentence mandate applies to a conviction for the greater-included offense under [Section] 924(j).”  But it argues that the issue “has limited practical importance” and notes that the Supreme Court has repeatedly denied cert on the issue.

So, sentencing fans, we have a new sentencing case on the SCOTUS docket, but it is one of "limited practical importance."  I suppose any water in the desert will have to do.